DanG 1 #326 July 10, 2014 QuoteBut just so you know I am not looking. I don't need to as I am not working from a position of faith Not looking for evidence because you know your position is right? That's pretty much the definition of faith. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #327 July 10, 2014 DanGQuoteBut just so you know I am not looking. I don't need to as I am not working from a position of faith Not looking for evidence because you know your position is right? That's pretty much the definition of faith. It could be that he KNOWS that he's wrong and that there's no evidence for him to find.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #328 July 10, 2014 DanG Quote But just so you know I am not looking. I don't need to as I am not working from a position of faith Not looking for evidence because you know your position is right? That's pretty much the definition of faith. Nice little twist Buy hey, you want to bet your position on what is now known to be purposly manipulated data? Hell, go for it"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #329 July 10, 2014 kallend***QuoteBut just so you know I am not looking. I don't need to as I am not working from a position of faith Not looking for evidence because you know your position is right? That's pretty much the definition of faith. It could be that he KNOWS that he's wrong and that there's no evidence for him to find. Likely?? The cool think John is that nearly all of the new infor coming out does NOT support you You know this So you misdirect I get it Fun to play along too"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #330 July 10, 2014 Quote...what is now known to be purposly manipulated data? No, that's what's at issue. So far, I haven't seen anything reputable that shows the data has been manipulated with deception in mind. You think you have, but all your links are to fringe websites, and papers like the Washington Times. If the data manipulation is so blatant, it should be easy to show us where a real scientist has reviewed it and found it lacking. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #331 July 10, 2014 DanGQuote...what is now known to be purposly manipulated data? No, that's what's at issue. So far, I haven't seen anything reputable that shows the data has been manipulated with deception in mind. You think you have, but all your links are to fringe websites, and papers like the Washington Times. If the data manipulation is so blatant, it should be easy to show us where a real scientist has reviewed it and found it lacking. Well for me, it is not any ONE report or article But the number of them Add to this the fact than none of the earth ending predictions are being seen The Hide the Decline and the rest of the emails All together? Manipulation How about the record ice extents that are being reported? Are the polar bears dead now? How many cities have we lost to coastal waters rising? (and those who try in include normal coastal erosion to AWG are jokesters) The list goes on Dan and on and on and on...... Oh And for the alarmists, even once reputable pro AWG scientists who have NOW changed their minds based on what they are seeing become pariahs to be destroyed so, nothing from anyone who questions this myth has any chance of being reputable with the followers of the religion that is Manmade climate change"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #332 July 10, 2014 >Not looking for evidence because you know your position is right? That's pretty >much the definition of faith. Or in this case simple self-interest. He works in an industry that will do much better financially if fear, uncertainty and doubt can be sown over climate science. You see this all the time. Even the most rabid right-winger, for example, will "find environmentalism" if he can use it to keep an unsightly development from being built near him. Such people are immune to reason; they just search the web to find stuff to support their position and use that without any critical thought. To them it's not an issue of ethics or morality or right vs wrong; it's a simple matter of self interest. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #333 July 10, 2014 So you're going to hang your hat on "scandals" like the CRU e-mails that, once reviewed independently, were found not to be scandals at all? Even though there's no evidence of manipulation, the fact that you're heard the story many times means it must be true? I guess the old mantra of, "say it enough times, and people will believe it,' is working on you. QuoteHow about the record ice extents that are being reported? There is a link upthread to explains the sea ice extent quite well. Have you read it? QuoteAre the polar bears dead now? Some are. I don't think anyone predicted they'd all be dead by now. Do you dispute that the northwest passage is open for a longer time each year? Is that "manipulated data"? QuoteHow many cities have we lost to coastal waters rising? None. Who said we'd lose cities to ocean rise by 2014? If you based your arguments in facts, like you want GW believers to do, you'd sound more credible. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #334 July 10, 2014 DanGSo you're going to hang your hat on "scandals" like the CRU e-mails that, once reviewed independently, were found not to be scandals at all? Even though there's no evidence of manipulation, the fact that you're heard the story many times means it must be true? I guess the old mantra of, "say it enough times, and people will believe it,' is working on you. QuoteHow about the record ice extents that are being reported? There is a link upthread to explains the sea ice extent quite well. Have you read it? QuoteAre the polar bears dead now? Some are. I don't think anyone predicted they'd all be dead by now. Do you dispute that the northwest passage is open for a longer time each year? Is that "manipulated data"? QuoteHow many cities have we lost to coastal waters rising? None. Who said we'd lose cities to ocean rise by 2014? If you based your arguments in facts, like you want GW believers to do, you'd sound more credible. Ya And I posted some links too As for credibility? I addressed that uptread"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #335 July 10, 2014 rushmc***Quote...what is now known to be purposly manipulated data? No, that's what's at issue. So far, I haven't seen anything reputable that shows the data has been manipulated with deception in mind. You think you have, but all your links are to fringe websites, and papers like the Washington Times. If the data manipulation is so blatant, it should be easy to show us where a real scientist has reviewed it and found it lacking. Well for me, it is not any ONE report or article But the number of them ....... SO, as usual, you have NOTHING valid to support your claim.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #336 July 10, 2014 kallend ****** Quote ...what is now known to be purposly manipulated data? No, that's what's at issue. So far, I haven't seen anything reputable that shows the data has been manipulated with deception in mind. You think you have, but all your links are to fringe websites, and papers like the Washington Times. If the data manipulation is so blatant, it should be easy to show us where a real scientist has reviewed it and found it lacking. Well for me, it is not any ONE report or article But the number of them ....... SO, as usual, you have NOTHING valid to support your claim. At this point John, nothing more is needed All you stood behind is being shot down Lieing, deception, manipulation, none of the predictions following the alarm!!! So as usual, you come out this waythanks for being consistant if nothing else I would take anything NEW you might come across My mind can be changed Cause it has already! I once DID believe man could cause global warming Not anymore Unless you got something else"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #337 July 10, 2014 http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/10/scholarly-journal-retracts-60-articles-smashes-peer-review-ring/"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #338 July 10, 2014 So now you're going full-on right wing anti-science? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #339 July 10, 2014 billvonSo now you're going full-on right wing anti-science? Ohh another interesting angle to try and stop debate Well done sir weill done!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #340 July 10, 2014 rushmchttp://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/10/scholarly-journal-retracts-60-articles-smashes-peer-review-ring/ So a shitty newspaper posts a story about a journal that has nothing to do with climate. Then you try and use that article to support your opinion on purposely manipulated climate science. All while claiming a superior understanding of science. This is pretty good!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #341 July 10, 2014 SkyDekker***http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/10/scholarly-journal-retracts-60-articles-smashes-peer-review-ring/ So a shitty newspaper posts a story about a journal that has nothing to do with climate. Then you try and use that article to support your opinion on purposely manipulated climate science. All while claiming a superior understanding of science. This is pretty good!!you don't get it. They are all shifty if you don't agree with them"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #342 July 10, 2014 rushmc******http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/10/scholarly-journal-retracts-60-articles-smashes-peer-review-ring/ So a shitty newspaper posts a story about a journal that has nothing to do with climate. Then you try and use that article to support your opinion on purposely manipulated climate science. All while claiming a superior understanding of science. This is pretty good!!you don't get it. They are all shifty if you don't agree with them And you, as always, have nothing of relevance to add.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #343 July 11, 2014 Marc, every time a piece of data comes out that supports your position that climate change isn't happening, you rush to post it here. But when a report comes out that is counter to your beliefs, you claim it must be the product of manipulated data, peer review fraud, or biased because of politics. Do you truly not see your confirmation bias? It is obvious to everyone else. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #344 July 11, 2014 DanGMarc, every time a piece of data comes out that supports your position that climate change isn't happening, you rush to post it here. But when a report comes out that is counter to your beliefs, you claim it must be the product of manipulated data, peer review fraud, or biased because of politics. Do you truly not see your confirmation bias? It is obvious to everyone else. Post me recent data filled report that is new and supports your comment"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #345 July 11, 2014 QuotePost me recent data filled report that is new and supports your comment Let's start with post #264 of this thread. You never responded to it. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #346 July 11, 2014 DanGQuotePost me recent data filled report that is new and supports your comment Let's start with post #264 of this thread. You never responded to it. Actually, it is a perfect example of the point I have been making What is happen with the ice is NOT what was predicted is is! So, here we go again with someone trying to explain away why the observations are not matching the dire predictions So, as I have pointed out before, there are still way too many not understood factors to blame or claim anything This paper is a theory we now have based on real observations So, is this new? Not really. It is an attempt (IMO) to keep the alarmism hi Now, all of these ideas may be real. Do you know they are or do you just take them at face value becuae it is what you want to beleive Me? I done know but this I do know, it does not support AWG theory"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #347 July 11, 2014 Science progresses. Understandings change. When something doesn't fit the predictions, you try to understand why. You don't just throw your hands up and say, "It's all a scam!!!" - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #348 July 11, 2014 DanGScience progresses. Understandings change. When something doesn't fit the predictions, you try to understand why. You don't just throw your hands up and say, "It's all a scam!!!" Exactly Unless you are an AWG supporter ANY info contrary to that view is labled a scam As are those who actively question is EVEN if you were once a revered supporter Change your mind based on on observation and investigation you become a pile of shit"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #349 July 11, 2014 QuoteExactly Unless you are an AWG denier ANY info contrary to that view is labled a scam As are those who actively question is Are the difference is? - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #350 July 11, 2014 DanGQuoteExactly Unless you are an AWG denier ANY info contrary to that view is labled a scam As are those who actively question is Are the difference is? Observed data vs the predictions"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
