Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

An Open Message To Global Warming Scare-Mongers From A Skeptic

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 12:39 AM
link   
If you are a Global Warming scare-monger, then this post is for you.

If not, then please feel free to learn about my opinions of Global Warming scare-mongers from it. Though this message is targeted at the Global Warming variant of scare-monger, I feel pretty much the same way about all kinds, so you can take some general principles away from this post if you like, as well.

Call this argument a straw man if you like. After all, not everyone who believes in Global Warming is a scare-monger. True enough, and I am by no means suggesting otherwise.

But I've run into plenty who are, right here on ATS, who see fit to malign me for not agreeing with them, and that's why I'm writing this post.

You are out there, you know who you are, and I'm talking to you right here, right now, straight up, no holding back.

This is my honest, unflinching opinion about you and your tactics.

I Distrust People Who Preach Fear

While it's not 100% infallible, I have found in my short life that when someone is trying to frighten me, it's usually because they are trying to control me, to get me to do something out of fear rather than reason, and thus get me to do something I wouldn't normally do.

My normally strong skepticism becomes even stronger when I become aware of people trying to manipulate me in this way, and sure enough, I've seen it plenty of times, in plenty of arenas, including right here on ATS.

The Global Warming Scare (and yes, in my opinion it is a “scare” in every legitimate sense of the word) is rife with such tactics and has consequently earned my enduring skepticism.

I remember when I first saw the term used way back in the '80s. It was tied with fear based on insufficient evidence then, and it is the same way today.

My Current Position On Global Warming

Global Warming is a theory, and it is an unproven theory.

Yet it is repeated like a gospel truth by people who ought to know better, despite the fact that it may well turn out to be just another form of phlogiston.

I'm not saying Global Warming isn't occurring, nor am I saying that human activity can't be causing Global Warming.

That's because I don't know.

Being honest about that seems to be a controversial position to take, in light of how much grief I get for it, but I'm going to stand firm until I see some logical reason to change it.

The Burden Of Proof

The bottom line in matters like this is that it is not my responsibility to prove that Global Warming doesn't exist.

Aside from the obvious fallacy of trying to prove a negative on such a grand scale, I'm not the person that invented this theory, and I'm not trying to scare people into believing me.

The burden of proof when introducing some new concept, whether a theory, a philosophy or a scare is on the people promoting it.

If it makes sense to me, I may choose to adopt it. If not, then I won't. If anyone has a problem with that, the problem lies with them for not respecting my intellectual liberty, not with me for exercising it.

You can take potshots at my skepticism and suspicions all you want. All that tells me is that you don't even believe your own stories, and thus fear reasonable skepticism.

You sure as hell will never earn my agreement by slandering me.

Trust No One, Suspect Everyone

Yes, I strongly suspect the motivation behind many of the proponents of Global Warming, because I can see clear profit motives behind the movement.

I am also convinced that many “scientists” who seek to debunk Global Warming are doing so on someone's payroll, again, promoting “science” as a way to fatten someone's wallet.

However, I try to be careful not to falsely accuse anyone in particular of drumming up sentiment one way or the other for profit, although there are a few choice suspects.

Again, it's because I don't know for sure, even though the pattern is clear as day in some cases. Rather than accuse someone falsely, I think it's better to leave my suspicions vague until proven.

If you really believed Global Warming were true, you would spend less time sniping at critics and more time building a rational case that can withstand reasoned logical analysis.

Instead, it's classic evangelism: pointing the fingers at “unbelievers” and warning that they must repent or perish. Accept our gospel or suffer eternal damnation.

Hogwash.

A Call To Reason

To date, I have seen not one conclusive, rational case establishing the existence of Global Warming, either alone or as a man-made phenomenon.

Not one, and I have been looking very diligently for one.

To those responsible for that failure, the solution is to make a rational case, rather than insulting people for not drinking your kool-aid and calling them “irrational” for being rational.

Science, YES! Propaganda, NO!

Is that clear enough for everyone?

For those inclined to do so, feel free to keep insulting me for not buying into your sanctimonious bullcrap. It helps me keep track of who the false prophets, junk scientists, corporate pawns and bald-faced liars are.

Meanwhile, baseless attacks on my credibility for refusing to choose one side or the other in this debate are a great way to ensure that I will never agree with the scoundrels promoting them.

If the truth is on your side, then use it.




posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 01:32 AM
link   
You got my vote. and to make sure this post IS accepted (due to length requirements), I need to reiterate. you got my vote.



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 01:41 AM
link   
Hell of a post Majic


You says things that most people only think of saying. The things you wrote have certainly opened my eyes a bit wider.
Again, excellent post


You deserve this too.



You have voted Majic for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 02:08 AM
link   
I believe Global warming is happening. But i think it has more to do with us coming out of the last ice age than anything, although me may have helped a little.

As for scaremongering! I agree 100% with you on that... not just with Global Warming, but Telling the people the terrorists will get you (pre 1991 it was the communists), or doing certain things may kill you etc etc... i think being wary and cautious is ok. But scaring people into changing thier lives and reducing their freedoms to 'make it safer'...

But i must reiterate... i do believe global warming is a serious issue... although not something we may have caused.... it is something we need to monitor... not scaring you tho



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 02:58 AM
link   
Nice one Majic, it had to be said.

However I do believe that global warming is happening, and I believe that it is probably human activity that is causing it (again, far from proven tho').

My point is this: even if the world could somehow stop all greenhouse gas emissions right now, it may already be too late because Earth atmospheric changes changes appear already in motion. SO why cripple ourselves financially by introducing all kinds of emission restrictions now when we may need that money later to implement a range of fixes.

"Technical fixes" i think I saw them called, such as seeding the oceans with Iron to promote CO2 takeup by plankton, or my idea of a few months back for some form of sunshield way out in space to block out some of the sunlight to cause Earth cooling. Perhaps someone else has a full list of the possible "technical fix" options?
The point is, we may need them someday regardless of what we do right now, and they cost money.



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 03:46 AM
link   
Skepticism is always good, and i don't know why people would slander you because of it. But imo, there has been more than enough proof that these changes are happening, and i don't think anyone can deny that extreme changes in climate patterns are happening.

The problem with this topic is the phrase that has been used to describe these changes we are currently going through.

The definition of global warming in most people's minds is that the whole globe is at the same time heating up, but this is not the case. While many areas of the world are indeed become hotter, there are other areas that have cooled because the Earth's ecosystem tries to balance itself, and tries to achieve a constant balance.

The whole premise for most scientists claiming that global warming is not really happening, is because of this balance that the Earth's ecosystem constantly tries to achieve, because there are some areas that are showing a cooling trend.

What is happening right now to the Earth, has happened many times before. In part it is only a cycle in the life of this planet which has the right conditions for life as we know it to exist. But it is also true that these past changes have had a negative impact on many species on Earth. This time around the one speices that is going to have more of a negative impact because of these changes is mankind.

Another premise for many scientists who disagree that global warming is happening, is the belief by many, that mankind can not possibly have any influence in the ecosystem of this planet. But when there is a problem, adding more problems on top does not make things better, or the same, it makes things worse; and that is what mankind has been doing. We have been adding problems which is making climate change faster.

For example; we know that the Earth's climate depends not only on the Sun, but on the oceans and seas as well. The oceans/seas of Earth control in great part the global climate, it is for a reason that the oceans are called the "global heat engine" of Earth.


A few facts about The Oceans:

Cover 70% of the surface of the Earth.
Have 1,100 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere (99.9% of the heat capacity of the Earth's fluids)
Contain 90,000 times as much water as the atmosphere (97% of the free water on the planet)
Receive 78% of global precipitation
A quote from Arthur C. Clarke gets it right:


"How inappropriate to call this planet Earth when clearly it is Ocean"

--Nature, v. 344, p 102, 1990.


Excerpted from.
www.whoi.edu...


When there are changes in ocean patterns, there are changes in climate globally.

The global ocean circulation patterns, or thermohaline (thermo= heat, haline = salinity) circulation, depends on the balance of salinity and temperature of the oceans. Which in turn is what allows for the mild winters in many of the northern and southern regions. Any change in salinity and/or temperature, affects this ocean circulation, and in turn the global climate.

If the delicate balance of the thermohaline circulation is broken, and noone knows for certain the breaking point, this global circulation will not only slow down, which has been demonstrated that it has slowed down, but can completly shut down the north Atlantic conveyor. This in turn will make for colder climate patterns, more so in the northern latitudes. So in the end, the result of global warming is a colder climate for most of the world.

There has been much discusion on whether or not mankind is contributing to what is called global warming, and it is true that there are scientist who don't believe that global warming exist for the reasons I have already given.

But one has to ask, since when adding more problems ( in this case greenhouse gases and other chemical and gases human activity has been releasing since the industrial revolution) to a problem that already exists, (the cyclic pattern of climate change) does not contribute to make these changes faster of worse?


What has many people worried now is that over the past 250 years humans have been artificially raising the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Our factories, power plants, and cars burn coal and gasoline and spit out a seemingly endless stream of carbon dioxide. We produce millions of pounds of methane by allowing our trash to decompose in landfills and by breeding large herds of methane-belching cattle. Nitrogen-based fertilizers, which we use on nearly all our crops, release unnatural amounts of nitrogen oxide into the atmosphere.

Once these carbon-based greenhouse gases get into the atmosphere, they stay there for decades or longer. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), since the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide levels have increased 31 percent and methane levels have increased 151 percent. Paleoclimate readings taken from ice cores and fossil records show that these gases, two of the most abundant greenhouse gases, are at their highest levels in the past 420,000 years. Many scientists fear that the increased concentrations of greenhouse gases have prevented additional thermal radiation from leaving the Earth. In essence, these gases are trapping excess heat in the Earth’s atmosphere in much the same way that a windshield traps solar energy that enters a car.


Excerpted from.
earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

Anyways, you want not to believe that global warming is actually ocurring, that is fine, it is your choice not to believe it, but the evidence to me shows that not only is it real, but it is happening as we speak, or in this case as i am writing this.


---edited for errors---

[edit on 12-4-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 08:29 AM
link   
Avoiding False Dichotomies


Originally posted by Muaddib
Anyways, you want not to believe that global warming is actually ocurring, that is fine, it is your choice not to believe it, but the evidence to me shows that not only is it real, but it is happening as we speak, or in this case as i am writing this.

One of my objections to the use of the terms "belief” or “disbelief" with respect to Global Warming is that it polarizes opinions on the matter.

Worse, the "belief/disbelief" dichotomy (which I consider a false dichotomy) tends to turn the discussion into a matter of “believers” versus “unbelievers”, along the lines of a religious test of faith, and I refuse to accept such misleading labels.

I think it is an important question -- a very important question -- which is why I despise seeing it turned into little more than a holy war waged with propaganda, lies and deceit.

My position is not one of “belief” or “disbelief”, so let's drop that nonsense.

The Position Few Seem To Recognize As Valid: Honest Uncertainty

My position is that I don't know. The distinction is not minor, nor unimportant.

To go from not knowing to knowing, for me anyway, requires knowledge. There's a lot of information that can lead to such knowledge, but far too much of it is tainted.

So I'm still looking for a rational proof of the theory. It need not be perfect, it need not be bulletproof, but it needs to be free of the mystical and pseudo-scientific, pseudo-religious obfuscation which surrounds the discussion today.

And most of all, it needs to make sense to me.

From where I stand, in the middle, both sides of the debate are guilty as sin of tainting the discussion with mendacious blather and deceptive hand-waving on key issues.

Thus the list of people I feel I can trust to be honest with me about the topic is woefully slim.

Silver Lining

Still, I hope that someday I may be able to draw a conclusion I can be happy with.

Honesty, integrity and true science are the solution to the current bollix, in my opinion, not fear and demagoguery.

Ironically, believing that that seems to leave me in a rather lonely place.



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic

One of my objections to the use of the terms "belief” or “disbelief" with respect to Global Warming is that it polarizes opinions on the matter.

Worse, the "belief/disbelief" dichotomy (which I consider a false dichotomy) tends to turn the discussion into a matter of “believers” versus “unbelievers”, along the lines of a religious test of faith, and I refuse to accept such misleading labels.

I think it is an important question -- a very important question -- which is why I despise seeing it turned into little more than a holy war waged with propaganda, lies and deceit.

My position is not one of “belief” or “disbelief”, so let's drop that nonsense.



Magic, in the end is all about whether or not you want to accept the facts presented, that's what I meant about believing or not believing. I wasn't talking about having blind faith.

You are saying that all of it, or most of what is being said from both sides is propaganda, yet i see the best evidence coming from the physical evidence as to what is happening around the world.

One of the reasons why i chose to put a link from NASA is because you would think that this agency would be one of the last to actually accept the evidence that global warming does exist. Most of the budget for NASA is for science, aeronautics and exploration, with it's main budget towards puting machinery in outer space by use of rockets which each year put billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. NASA is one of the last agencies that should be presenting any evidence that global warming is real, because their budget depends very much on the release of billions of tons of those greenhouse gases.

If you want to see the budget for NASA for the FY2006, here is the link.
www.nasa.gov...

Yet, we all know that NASA is actually one of the agencies that has presented evidence to the fact that global warming is real, and it is happening right now. The link i gave has more links presenting part of this evidence.

But in the end Majic, is all about whether or not you want to "believe" or "accept" what this evidence is showing.



[edit on 12-4-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 03:34 AM
link   
Articles Of Faith

I won't be examining the merits or lack thereof of various arguments for or against Global Warming in this thread. There are plenty of other threads for that purpose.

NASA is not a disinterested party, nor are its employees, so arguments to that effect are meaningless to me.

There are no disinterested parties with respect to Global Warming, so I ain't buying that line. Period.

What I am addressing -- and condemning -- here, is the use of scare tactics to try to sway public opinion, including mine.

I'm saying that doing so discredits those who do it, and excludes them from my trust as sources.

As for evidence one way or another, that can be addressed elsewhere, and indeed has already been addressed with painful repetition and rarely without hand-waving or other dubious non-scientific embellishments.

Again, however, once I have established that a source of “facts” is lying to me, it's out of the picture from that point forward, and many self-accredited sources have already done that.

The Scientific Method

As I have repeatedly said, I don't know one way or the other about Global Warming as an actual scientific issue, but I am willing to learn.

To that end, I will be watching as more information is presented, and forming my own opinions along the way.

I have already been doing this for over a decade, so I am not a newcomer to the phenomenon. Just a skeptic who has seen a lot of bullfeces thrown around from falsely-labeled “impartial sources” already.

Any suggestions that I engage in a leap of faith will be summarily rejected. Attempts to evangelize me will be summarily rejected.

I will observe, note, question and draw conclusions on my own terms, and no one else's.

This is supposed to be about science, not religion.

I hope I am making myself clear on this.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 02:45 PM
link   
God this has to be the tenth time i've read this kind of thread on the web, and frankly its gettin old. Cant you come up with somthing a little more original?



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
................
Any suggestions that I engage in a leap of faith will be summarily rejected. Attempts to evangelize me will be summarily rejected.

I will observe, note, question and draw conclusions on my own terms, and no one else's.

This is supposed to be about science, not religion.

I hope I am making myself clear on this.


I just have to wonder who in the world was trying to "evangalize" you?

Of course you should draw your own conclusion....nowhere did i say that you shouldn't....

You asked for a logical analysis and I tried to sumarize what global warming is all about, that was it.

You don't have to agree with it. More power to ya i guess.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 06:13 PM
link   
their is a littile fact you should undestand their has been a constent rise in sea tempreatur for past few decades and a constent rise of sea level. the rise of sea level is a very big problem for me cause i live in Maldives the worlds lowest country (the highest point is only 2 meters for non metric folk it is around sixfeet) is the current phase of rising sea level continues you can bye bye to maldives in 50 ~ 90 years Max as it will be under water. i fully sapport and belive who is fighting for the savival of my home land and its mear 300,000 people.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 06:55 PM
link   
The Old “Lack Of Originality” Gambit


Originally posted by PeteTPP
God this has to be the tenth time i've read this kind of thread on the web, and frankly its gettin old. Cant you come up with somthing a little more original?

Please feel free to post links to the other nine so I can compare them. Otherwise, I'll stick with my original impression that you're just blowing smoke -- and unconvincingly so at that.

I also invite you to feel free to be creative yourself by actually posting something meaningful about the topic.

What's frankly getting old is senseless, off-topic innuendo aimed in my direction.


Listening For Whispers Under All The Shouting


Originally posted by Muaddib
I just have to wonder who in the world was trying to "evangalize" you?

I find it impossible to believe you having been following the Global Warming discussion and can post this with a straight face.

Examples abound right here on ATS, if you are willing to see them for what they are.

In this thread, I have simply stated a position of neutral skepticism, and you can already see some of the same old song and dance right here, in this thread.

See above, and below.

Making My Point


Originally posted by nightdeamon
their is a littile fact you should undestand their has been a constent rise in sea tempreatur for past few decades and a constent rise of sea level..

Nothing in your post establishes the existence of Global Warming.

It does, however, make my point about fear being injected into the discussion.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 08:16 PM
link   
majic please refer to this link and tell me if all these organizations from nasa to National geographic is wrong in their assessment of world climate change and why i should not be scared at the prospect of loosing my home land due to global warming

ku-prism.org...



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Once More, With Feeling


Originally posted by nightdeamon
majic please refer to this link and tell me if all these organizations from nasa to National geographic is wrong in their assessment of world climate change and why i should not be scared at the prospect of loosing my home land due to global warming

Whether you want to be afraid or not is up to you. The link you cited is rife with techniques I encounter all the time in my studies of propaganda.

When I see them, my skepticism increases.

Arguments that amount to "Global Warming is causing this" and "Global Warming is causing that" are meaningless when what is commonly labeled as "Global Warming" hasn't been proven at all.

Is there a global warming trend? Possibly, perhaps probably.

Is it unusual, or the result of human activity? I don't know, and neither does anyone else.

Some people are honest enough to admit their uncertainty, others are not.

And some people are unscrupulous enough to use fear to advance their agendas, which are usually centered around making money.

Should You Panic, Or Not?

If you want to fear Global Warming, that's your business. I don't, because I have seen no convincing proof that it is occurring.

If you are asking me if I think you should be afraid of losing your homeland due to Global Warming, my advice is “no”, you should not fear, because it won't do you a damn bit of good, and people never make rational decisions on the basis of fear.

Rather, I think you should make it your business to be informed about the possibilities, risks and options available to you.

There may very well be a risk of future flooding in Maldives. If so, what you and the people of Maldives do about it is what matters, not what I or anyone else does, because there's no one on the face of the earth that can really do anything about it when you get down to the bottom line.

Even if I assume that Global Warming is “real”, and that every remedy suggested for it will work, I seriously doubt that implementing them will affect what happens in Maldives because none of this stuff is instantaneous.

It's a very big planet, and as wonderful and technologically advanced as we humans are, the amount of power we actually have to control global weather is infinitesimally small, despite dubious claims to the contrary.

We are human beings, not God.

So far I have seen not one proposed “solution” that is feasible or would actually do anything meaningful to measurably change global weather anytime soon.

So basically, if Global Warming is the real deal, you're probably already out of luck.

The Long View

Global temperatures have fluctuated wildly ever since the Earth was formed, and that does not seemed to have changed in my lifetime -- although methods of observing and measuring global temperatures most certainly have.

Yes, it is possible that the weather trends we're seeing these days are something new and different, but without proof, we're left with theories and speculation, none of which inspire me to adopt a new religion.

But I'll keep watching and following the news, looking for something that may finally prove convincing to me.

And I intend to continue evaluating theories and statements on their merits, rather than their emotional content.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majic

I find it impossible to believe you having been following the Global Warming discussion and can post this with a straight face.

Examples abound right here on ATS, if you are willing to see them for what they are.

In this thread, I have simply stated a position of neutral skepticism, and you can already see some of the same old song and dance right here, in this thread.

See above, and below.

Making My Point


Originally posted by nightdeamon
their is a littile fact you should undestand their has been a constent rise in sea tempreatur for past few decades and a constent rise of sea level..

Nothing in your post establishes the existence of Global Warming.

It does, however, make my point about fear being injected into the discussion.


I see, so what you are saying is that when scientists are explaining the consequences of global warming they are just trying to scare people into believing... You are saying that when scientists say sea level will rise if the ice that covers Greenland melts, and obviously the rise in sea level is going to submerge many lands around the world is just a scare monger tactic...

So, would you prefer that scientists only go so far as to say that sea levels will rise and then stop there?....

Not even metereologists do that, and for a good reason....

If metereologists see evidence that some weather disaster is going to strike a town, of course they are going to warn people of the impact and strength of the storm and what they should be doing to stay safe....

It is illogical to expect that scientists find evidence of what is happening with global warming and then expect them not to explain the consequences and what will most probably happen....

You are also saying that everyone including NASA has some ulterior motive as they explain global warming and the consequences.... yet you want to ignore that most of NASA's budget is to put machinery in outer space and around Earth's orbit puting millions of tons of green house gases in Earth's atmosphere every year.

Why would they do this if they actually need more funds to be able to pay their salaries and continue with their mission?....

You still want to think they must have an ulterior motive?...well, that is your choice to believe what you want. But it is still an illogical assumption in your part.

I could be wrong but it seems to me that you are afraid of what it could mean if you accept that global warming is real.

[edit on 14-4-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 09:52 AM
link   
I'm sorry but for the life of me I can't figure out what your goal in this thread is, Majic. Look here:


Originally posted by Majic
Articles Of Faith

I won't be examining the merits or lack thereof of various arguments for or against Global Warming in this thread. There are plenty of other threads for that purpose.

NASA is not a disinterested party, nor are its employees, so arguments to that effect are meaningless to me.

There are no disinterested parties with respect to Global Warming, so I ain't buying that line. Period.


I don't think you even took a breath in between stating you would not be addressing the merits of any given side of this issue and dismissing the merits of organizations that apply a heck of a lot of research time to gathering data. And it's ludicrous, and very unscientific to make a statement that implies they are gathering this data with some "agenda" in mind - and then not produce a stick of evidence as to why you say that.




As for evidence one way or another, that can be addressed elsewhere, and indeed has already been addressed with painful repetition and rarely without hand-waving or other dubious non-scientific embellishments.

.......

To that end, I will be watching as more information is presented, and forming my own opinions along the way.


There...you did it again! Which is it? Are you expecting people to come on this thread and say - YAY! Thank you for sharing your arrogant opinion that people who have decided differently than you obviously are "fear-mongerers" and "propagandists"! ???

You've offered NO PROOF that anyone involved in the pro-side of the Global Warming debate has been using fear tactics - (pssst - you just deciding they are isn't proof
).


Originally posted by Majic

I find it impossible to believe you having been following the Global Warming discussion and can post this with a straight face.

Examples abound right here on ATS, if you are willing to see them for what they are.



Yeah, examples abound right here on ATS in the other direction as well. This article, along with the Review that prefaced it might be helpful.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I, in fact, AM a neutral skeptic on the Global Warming issue. But, you - IMHO - are NOT. Because a neutral skeptic does not reject ANY applicable data.

And since you've brought up the Scientific Method (which I agree has been abandoned for Scientific Dogma) you might be wise to remember -

baseless rejection of data doesn't fit well into the Method. (Nor does calling names.)



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 06:05 PM
link   
The Hazards Of Amateur Mind-Reading


Originally posted by Muaddib
I could be wrong but it seems to me that you are afraid of what it could mean if you accept that global warming is real.

What I fear or do not fear is for me to decide. Meanwhile, you can speculate about it, be wrong and convince me only of your ability to make false assumptions.

I have expressed no fear of Global Warming at all. I think it is an important topic, but I do not fear it.

The Goal


Originally posted by Valhall
I'm sorry but for the life of me I can't figure out what your goal in this thread is, Majic.

The goal of the thread is stated clearly in the very first post. You may find it helpful to re-read it.

The Nature Of Arrogance


Originally posted by Valhall
Are you expecting people to come on this thread and say - YAY! Thank you for sharing your arrogant opinion that people who have decided differently than you obviously are "fear-mongerers" and "propagandists"! ???

Your misrepresentation of my position and labeling of my opinion as “arrogant” illustrates one of my objections to the nature of the debate.

I prefer honest discussions over dishonest characterizations.

I stated quite plainly in my first post to this thread that, and I quote, “not everyone who believes in Global Warming is a scare-monger”.

You are falsely implying that I hold a position that I do not hold, then labeling it as “arrogant”.

That is, effectively, empirical defamation, and a false characterization of my position on the issue.

Missing The Point


Originally posted by Valhall
You've offered NO PROOF that anyone involved in the pro-side of the Global Warming debate has been using fear tactics - (pssst - you just deciding they are isn't proof
).

That isn't the point of this thread, which you have already admitted not understanding.

This thread states my opinion on Global Warming scare-mongers. You are free to believe they exist or not as you see fit.

I see plenty of them plying their trade, hence the impetus to post about it.

My message is directed at them. If you think it's directed at you, you may want to consider why you think of yourself as a “Global Warming scare-monger”.

If the shoe fits, eat it.

Selective Labeling As A Discussion Tactic


Originally posted by Valhall
I, in fact, AM a neutral skeptic on the Global Warming issue. But, you - IMHO - are NOT. Because a neutral skeptic does not reject ANY applicable data.

I am not interested in being falsely labeled by you or anyone else. I am simply stating my opinions.

The fact that you see fit to label me for expressing them is indicative of your thinking on the matter, but reveals nothing about me whatsoever.

Irony In Literature


Originally posted by Valhall
baseless rejection of data doesn't fit well into the Method. (Nor does calling names.)

Considering your use of labels to “name” me in this thread, I agree. By your own definition, you have abandoned the scientific method.

My recommendation is to embrace honesty and evaluate data as objectively as possible. No one is capable of true objectivity, but it is, at least, a worthy goal.

Appeals to fear and emotion are in diametric opposition to that goal, and to the goal of discovering the truth about Global Warming, which I also consider a worthy goal.

Your attempts to label and discredit me for expressing my honest opinion indicate nothing other than your distaste for my expressing my honest opinion.

Instead, I suggest a more tolerant regard for differing points of view. It will serve you better.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 07:01 PM
link   
You know, I've not encountered but a handful of people who can use as many words as you and say as little as you do.

You keep up the good work.

As for me...I'll spend my time reading the evidence available, and let you be the grand overseer of what to dismiss on a hunch.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 07:09 PM
link   
...Then Just Shoot The Messenger, Instead


Originally posted by Valhall
You know, I've not encountered but a handful of people who can use as many words as you and say as little as you do.

Meanwhile, ATS members who throw out baseless insults like these are a dime a dozen.

Here's hoping that will change.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join