How many scientists really dispute global warming?

Quote from bigdavediode:

Gray wrote a scientific paper that quoted Michael Crichton. He doesn't even know how the THC works and he uses information that is 50 years out of date. He even did a video spot for a group owned by... guess who... Exxon Mobil.

So, err... congratulations? You found someone -- anyone -- to reassure you?

Lindzen, meanwhile, was forced to change his views that 20th century warming is real because experiments disproved his theories.

But two people is a great start -- you only need a few thousand more and you'll be on to something.
More...

The leftist playbook.

Global Warming.

Step 1. Make a bunch of baseless and bogus predictions that paint doomsday scenerios due to global warming.

Step 2. Demand extreme government intervention into the lives of everyday citizens in order to prevent the diaster.

Step 3. Hope the climate actually cooperates with you.

Step 4. When the climate does not cooperate, claim that Global Warming is actually going to make the temp colder.

Step 5. Accuse anyone who points out your bogus predictions as working for Exxon Mobile.

Step 6. If your email gets hacked and people want to know why you were trying to "hide the decline", claim that the email was taken completely out of context.


Its too bad nobody told Lindzen about your bogus claim. All we need now is for you call Lindzen a racist, but its more likely you will try the Exxon card.

Step 1. Make completely absurd claim that demonizes your opposition.

Step 2. Present it as if it is fact.

Step 3. If they call bullshit, accuse them of being racist.

Step 4. If the racist claim doesn't work. Blame Bush.

After hearing these idiots run their mouths for so many years I know them better than they know themselves. I have highlighted two of their bullshit argument techniques and watched with amazement as BigDaveDiode, played them all to the T. Look at the argument style from the playbook and look how close it matches BigDave. Its uncanny.
 
Quote from drjekyllus:


Step 5. Accuse anyone who points out your bogus predictions as working for Exxon Mobile.
More...

Well then stop quoting people who have links to Exxon Mobil.

"In 2006, Gray appeared in a video news release, or fake TV news spot, produced by the PR firm Medialink Worldwide and sponsored by Tech Central Station, a conservative website that was owned and operated at the time by DCI Group, one of ExxonMobil's lobbying firms. The VNR was titled, "Global Warming and Hurricanes: All Hot Air?"
 
Quote from bigdavediode:

Well then stop quoting people who have links to Exxon Mobil.

"In 2006, Gray appeared in a video news release, or fake TV news spot, produced by the PR firm Medialink Worldwide and sponsored by Tech Central Station, a conservative website that was owned and operated at the time by DCI Group, one of ExxonMobil's lobbying firms. The VNR was titled, "Global Warming and Hurricanes: All Hot Air?"
More...

This has to do with the FACTS how? You can't disprove anything the guy put out. Your only "dispute" is claiming its from Exxon Mobile. As if that makes it false. When you see leftists disputing the funding and not the facts you know that they have NOTHING.

Your shit is weak, dude.
 
Quote from drjekyllus:

This has to do with the FACTS how?
More...

I quoted two facts already, which you ignored.

The guy doesn't understand how the THC works.

The guy uses theories that have been out of date for 50 years.

You can't disprove anything the guy put out.
More...

Actually, it's surprisingly easy. But first you would have to know enough about the topic to present an actual argument that he's brought forth.

So fire away.
 
Quote from bigdavediode:

I quoted two facts already, which you ignored.

The guy doesn't understand how the THC works.

The guy uses theories that have been out of date for 50 years.{/Quote]

The guy is the world's foremost expert on hurricanes. How is he 50 years out of date? I suppose you know more than him.



Actually, it's surprisingly easy. But first you would have to know enough about the topic to present an actual argument that he's brought forth.

So fire away.
More...

Your only argument was to claim that he was hooked up with Exxon Mobil. Are you claiming that the guy lied to the academic community in return for money from Exxon Mobil? If not what does Exxon have to do with it in the first place?
More...
 
Quote from drjekyllus:

Your only argument was to claim that he was hooked up with Exxon Mobil.
More...

Here is my quote: "Gray wrote a scientific paper that quoted Michael Crichton. He doesn't even know how the THC works and he uses information that is 50 years out of date. He even did a video spot for a group owned by... guess who... Exxon Mobil."

You made an appeal to authority. I've attacked his authority. If you'd like to have his arguments ripped to shreds, please post one of his arguments that you wish to debate.

Are you claiming that the guy lied to the academic community in return for money from Exxon Mobil? If not what does Exxon have to do with it in the first place?
More...

I'm claiming that your authority, isn't an authority at all. I'm claiming that he hasn't been competent for ten or more years. I'm claiming that he has received money from PR firms controlled by Exxon Mobil.

Let's be honest here, you don't really understand any of his arguments to present them.
 
Quote from drjekyllus:

We have William M. Gray. He is considered to be the world's foremost expert of predicting hurricanes. That doesn't count though, he is too.......(fill in any bullshit reason here).

We have Richard Lindzen. He is only an atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I know. MIT? Wow, what a bunch of shitheads? MIT has zero credibility.
More...
Why don't you read Lindzen's papers? He doesn't deny there is global warming. He just doesn't see it as an immediate problem - which is fine, but don't misrepresent his position.
 
Quote from tmarket:

Why don't you read Lindzen's papers? He doesn't deny there is global warming. He just doesn't see it as an immediate problem - which is fine, but don't misrepresent his position.
More...

Yeah, he agrees with 90% of it. The 10% he doesn't agree with is the alarmist propaganda BS put forward by bullshit artists like Al Gore. He might only disagree with 10% but its the most important 10% isn't it? If the scamsters would take the politics out of the debate and deal with actual science they would do themselves a lot of favors. But lets be honest, the MMGW hoax is not about science, its a scam put together by a bunch of political hustlers who are looking for an excuse to get their paws on more and more aspects of the economy. Look no further than Copenhagen to see that these folks are really interested in redistributing wealth, and have zero interest in using the free market to find a solution. Look no further than the standing ovation they gave to Hugo Chavez. It highlights who they are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top