[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Obviously your adequate scores in science were tempered with sub-par scores in reading comprehension. I made no attempt to claim a majority opinion on anything constituted proof or validity.

You gave those #'s in context of talking about calling the validity of science into question, and then said they didn't believe because the science was "scare-mongering". What else is it supposed to mean.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

That is an argument Gore and others have used repeatedly. Claiming a scientific consensus and trash talking any scientist who raises a question or offers alternate theories is a staple of Gore's environmental cult.

There is a scientific consensus, and that's vastly different than a public opinion. And Oh no, trash talking! How terrible.

You know what shuts up trash talking? Putting up. People with alternative theories publishing a paper instead of writing a book or appearing on Fox. You will probably claim that there's some kind conspiracy limiting them from doing so, even though there's no evidence of that, not even in the stolen emails. Sure there's private talk among some scientists about it, but no evidence of a vast global conspiracy, which is what would be required to stifle alternative theory publications.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

My conversation was concerning the politics of global warming and how ineffective the scaremongering has been on the general population. Considering the money and effort that has been given to promoting this theory to the masses there hasn't been much of an impact.

Fair enough. Though it's only scaremongering when you disagree, eh? And that's my point as well; there's a lot of people who reject science based on ideology or emotion. It's a difficult thing to teach people who don't want to learn.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Your attack on my faith had nothing to do with the conversation and everything to do with your disdain for me. How human and unscientific of you!

I didn't attack your faith, and I don't have disdain for you. I have disdain for some of the things you think and how you came to think them, but that's different (kind of like hate the sin love the sinner).

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

As for your unanswered questions; the ones I remember revolved around you asking for posts of the specific emails we/I were discussing. I found the request ignorant being as they were already posted in this thread with links.

So link to the posts then, I can't read your mind and figure out which ones you mean.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You had already said you had read them and thought they were all taken out of context. Obviously that was enough for you to close the file. But for me and a few others your opinion settled nothing. Given your inability to follow the conversation I think my opinion was justified.

So explain why they weren't taken out of context. I posted a video that explained exactly what the meaning of the two emails so far mentioned are, the hiding the decline one and the trick one.

I provided dictionary definitions for trick which showed that normal people use the word to refer to something non-deceptive.

The video shows what hiding the decline means and shows that it means nothing about global temperatures.

One appropriate response if you are trying to convince someone that the emails ARE in fact evidence of wrong doing is to show in context that trick IS meant to deceive, or that the decline being hid IS related to global temperatures.