Page 42 of 111 FirstFirst ... 3237383940414243444546475292 ... LastLast
Results 821 to 840 of 2209
  1. #821  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Samkim, I really did admire your enthusiasm and zeal on this issue. Like I said before, if we were fellow editors, I would have let you make your call on arguing your points. Now you're saying that anyone who disagrees with you on these points is immoral and dishonest and I am frankly getting fed up with your insults.
    No. I never said that anyone who disagrees with me is immoral and dishonest. Stop making things up.

    Making false and misleading statements to promote a political cause is immoral and dishonest. Are you really insulted by that??

    1. You agreed that using the term "reality" was wrong. You called it "overstepping."
    2. Then you said that you still approve of it, even though it's wrong.
    3. Then you said the use of the term is actually inconsequential.
    4. Now you say that objecting to the term wasn't really your idea, just something you would have gone along with. Yeah, that changes everything.

    Man-made global warming is strongly upheld by the scientific evidence. The data are the reality. Do they provide 100% certainty no, but the data are real nonetheless, they are the reality here. We must face this reality. Can you understand this?
    You're really twisting here. Nice try, but irrelevant to this discussion. No one is applying the word "reality" to the data, and no one would object to applying the word "reality" to the data.

    The history professor who wrote the "essay" in Science magazine and the federal employees who wrote the report you cited used the word "reality" to describe the claim that man causes global warming. You agreed that was wrong. But you're okay with that.
  2. #822  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    Making false and misleading statements to promote a political cause is immoral and dishonest.
    OK lets look at these statements.
    Quote Originally Posted by http://climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf
    Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.
    They are talking about challenging the reality of data. That is what the whole abstract is about "data"- its mentioned four times subsequently. Coincidently this is data which you were furiously challenging prior to your knowledge of their report (http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...915#post988915). So instead of calling the President Bush's Scientific Commission dishonest and immoral you should be thanking them for clarifying what you have been questioning for so long.

    How about the article published in the top scientific journal Science:

    Quote Originally Posted by Science 3 December 2004:Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686
    The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686
    So you would have us believe the author is trying to mislead us into thinking man-made global warming is a fact when in two different places she says that the data could be wrong and that we do not know everything. I find your claim that she is dishonest and immoral extremely hard to swallow.

    Both instances seem to me to be the case of shoot the messenger, by calling them dishonest and immoral, when you dislike the data they bring.
  3. #823  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    They are talking about challenging the reality of data. That is what the whole abstract is about "data"- its mentioned four times subsequently. Coincidently this is data which you were furiously challenging prior to your knowledge of their report (http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...915#post988915). So instead of calling the President Bush's Scientific Commission dishonest and immoral you should be thanking them for clarifying what you have been questioning for so long.
    Okay, so you're trying to change the subject. But this report addresses NONE of my points. Not even close. Apparently you were confused because they used the word "data" and so did I.


    And no, I never called the authors of that report dishonest and immoral. If I implied it, I didn't mean to, and I take it back. I said they were sloppy, and their use of the term "reality" was a wrong.

    I said, "Making false and misleading statements to promote a political cause is immoral and dishonest." Are you really trying to challenge that statement???

    If the authors deliberately exaggerated the science to promote a political cause, then yes, that would be dishonest and immoral. I said earlier that it was politically-driven, but of course I don't know their true motivations. It could have been a mistake, as I've mentioned a couple times:

    I said, "Sloppy use of language by a small number of scientists is not representative of the scientific community. And promoting statements that you know to be biased and political is immoral, IMO." This was directed at you, not them.

    I also said to you, "If you're going to mislead people to further your political objectives, don't pretend that your case is based on peer-reviewed research or scientific consensus. This misuse of a word, deliberate or otherwise, by a handful of Federal employees does not make a 'scientific consensus.' "


    You've made it clear that you know the claim is wrong, and yet you still support it.


    How about the article published in the top scientific journal Science:


    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686
    So you would have us believe the author is trying to mislead us into thinking man-made global warming is a fact when in two different places she says that the data could be wrong and that we do not know everything. I find your claim that she is dishonest and immoral extremely hard to swallow.

    Both instances seem to me to be the case of shoot the messenger, by calling them dishonest and immoral, when you dislike the data they bring.
    It's quite simple. If she made "false and misleading statements to promote a political cause" then yes, that is dishonest and immoral. If not, then no. No need for counting balanced statements.



    Do you really disagree that it's wrong to make false and misleading statements to promote a political cause?? I'm baffled by your line of reasoning here. Instead of distancing yourself from your previous support of making misleading statements, you're trying to challenge whether it's a bad thing at all.
  4. #824  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    I also said to you, "If you're going to mislead people to further your political objectives, don't pretend that your case is based on peer-reviewed research or scientific consensus. This misuse of a word, deliberate or otherwise, by a handful of Federal employees does not make a 'scientific consensus.' "


    You've made it clear that you know the claim is wrong, and yet you still support it.


    It's quite simple. If she made "false and misleading statements to promote a political cause" then yes, that is dishonest and immoral. If not, then no. No need for counting balanced statements.



    Do you really disagree that it's wrong to make false and misleading statements to promote a political cause?? I'm baffled by your line of reasoning here. Instead of distancing yourself from your previous support of making misleading statements, you're trying to challenge whether it's a bad thing at all.
    Samkim, maybe I have not been explaining my viewpoint and my perception of your viewpoint clearly enough to you, so let me do so now.

    First you were discussing how the Science article and the Presidential commission's article were misleading. I tried to be understanding with you, even to the point of saying if I were your fellow editor of the Science article, I would allow you to make your case about the word reality. Even though I would not have made the case myself. Maybe I did not make this latter point clear to you, and if that is the case I apologize.

    Later, when you said people who write articles like this were dishonest and immoral, I felt the need to point out to you that a reasonable person would not make this conclusion at all. I tried to show you how each of the articles did not seem unfairly worded to me. In addition, it seemed clear to me that you really do not want to accept the scientific evidence on global warming. This is based on a myriad of previous posts on this thread where you took every avenue possible to discredit or minimalize any of the data on global warming. On my part, I have repeatedly tried to point out the value of the data, but have tried to avoid calling them 100% certain.

    Sometimes in the heat of the argument I am capable of saying things that offend people, others on this forum can attest to this, if this was the case I do regret it. So now, maybe you do not agree with me, but at least you understand where I am coming from. Like O'Reilly I will let you have the final word.
  5. #825  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    I said, "Making false and misleading statements to promote a political cause is immoral and dishonest." Are you really trying to challenge that statement???

    Do you really disagree that it's wrong to make false and misleading statements to promote a political cause?? I'm baffled by your line of reasoning here....
    Pot and kettle. Meet the Charcoal.




    These are the handwritten edits of George Bush's Chief of Staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Who before and after working in the white house editing scientific reports to appear like opinion not fact, worked for Exxon doing the same. Campaigning to convince voters that "scientist don't agree on global warming".
  6. #826  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Later, when you said people who write articles like this were dishonest and immoral...
    Again, I never said that. Those words were directed at you alone for your position that it's okay to put out biased and misleading statements. But you know that. And your odd explanation that you were saying you would let me make the case, but you wouldn't make the case yourself doesn't change anything, since you still agree that it was improper, and you're still okay with it.

    In addition, it seemed clear to me that you really do not want to accept the scientific evidence on global warming. This is based on a myriad of previous posts on this thread where you took every avenue possible to discredit or minimalize any of the data on global warming.
    Again, absolutely false. You didn't understand my posts. Climate science is a broad field with plenty of solid data. There's a lot we understand about how the climate works. But there are real and large gaps in our data as well. I was very specific about the data we're missing. These gaps are not the core of climate science, but their existence makes it impossible to have a high degree of confidence in models that make long term climate predictions.

    As I said many times before, scientists are probably right about the causes of global warming.

    Sometimes in the heat of the argument I am capable of saying things that offend people, others on this forum can attest to this, if this was the case I do regret it. So now, maybe you do not agree with me, but at least you understand where I am coming from. Like O'Reilly I will let you have the final word.
    I'm offended when you say false things about me as you've done repeatedly and apparently deliberately.
  7. #827  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Pot and kettle. Meet the Charcoal.
    The pot and kettle saying is generally used to accuse someone of hypocrisy. If you believe I said anything false or misleading, please identify it, just as I've had the courtesy of doing with you numerous times.


    These are the handwritten edits of George Bush's Chief of Staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Who before and after working in the white house editing scientific reports to appear like opinion not fact, worked for Exxon doing the same. Campaigning to convince voters that "scientist don't agree on global warming".
    You didn't finish your post. You didn't show how this is an example of making false and misleading statements. I understand he works for Bush and used to work in the oil industry, so he must be doubly dripping in evil. But to make your post relevant to my post, to which you responded, you need to demonstrate that he was making false and misleading statements. At that point, I can say, "Excellent point. Great example of dishonesty in the Bush Administration." Otherwise, it's just a random example of a micro-manager who makes sure that nothing gets released that he doesn't agree with.
  8. #828  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    The pot and kettle saying is generally used to accuse someone of hypocrisy. If you believe I said anything false or misleading, please identify it, just as I've had the courtesy of doing with you numerous times.


    You didn't finish your post. You didn't show how this is an example of making false and misleading statements. I understand he works for Bush and used to work in the oil industry, so he must be doubly dripping in evil. But to make your post relevant to my post, to which you responded, you need to demonstrate that he was making false and misleading statements. At that point, I can say, "Excellent point. Great example of dishonesty in the Bush Administration." Otherwise, it's just a random example of a micro-manager who makes sure that nothing gets released that he doesn't agree with.
    lol, Every single one of SamKim's arguments are the same. A bus could purposely run over his toe, and he would stand there and argue about the color of the driver's hair.

    "Making false and misleading statements to promote a political cause is immoral and dishonest."

    The government spends 1.8 Billion dollars a year researching global warming, but before that research is released, the white house literally filters it through an Exxon Lobbyist. One with no training in science, and one who actually changes the text of the reasearch to fit his political agenda.

    Only you could see that as "just a case of micro-management". lol
  9. #829  
    and btw, this particular "micro-management" got him fired, literally sending him back to Exxon where he continued to work on spreading the idea that we are just not quite sure yet about global warming
  10. #830  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    lol, Every single one of SamKim's arguments are the same. A bus could purposely run over his toe, and he would stand there and argue about the color of the driver's hair.

    "Making false and misleading statements to promote a political cause is immoral and dishonest."

    The government spends 1.8 Billion dollars a year researching global warming, but before that research is released, the white house literally filters it through an Exxon Lobbyist. One with no training in science, and one who actually changes the text of the reasearch to fit his political agenda.

    Only you could see that as "just a case of micro-management". lol
    No. Read my post again. And then read it again. I see it as not relevant to my discussion with cellmatrix nor to my post to which you replied. And I see it as not supporting the point you implied, which is that he made false and misleading statements. Read your own post again. Why did you imply that he made false statements???

    You call it dishonesty, yet you haven't shown that what he said was false. I just asked that you support your statements.

    You have a habit of saying or implying things, and then when it gets challenged, you say, "who cares?"

    And no, the White House didn't literally filter research through an Exxon lobbyist. That's a false and misleading statement. (See how easy it is to identify those?) The guy was a government employee. If your position is correct, why do you have to lie?
  11. #831  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    and btw, this particular "micro-management" got him fired
    I didn't say that what he did was right. I said that you didn't support your claims.
  12. #832  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
  13. #833  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    Again, I never said that. Those words were directed at you alone for your position that it's okay to put out biased and misleading statements. But you know that.
    Samkim, this is what I hear you telling me: the scientists who wrote the two articles are not dishonest or immoral, but I am dishonest and immoral for disagreeing with your opinion on them.

    You say they portray global warming as fact, but look at the science article which clearly states they could be wrong and dont have all the data. And after pointing that out, I am branded as dishonest and immoral. Don't you understand that?

    I believe what you are most upset about, is my saying you want to ignore or trivialize any data on global warming as much as you can. If that is an incorrect assumption, please accept my apologies, but I believe this is something any reasonable person would suspect, based on all of your posts in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    I'm offended when you say false things about me as you've done repeatedly and apparently deliberately.
    So you've called me dishonest and immoral but you also call me a liar to boot. Oh yes, and I am the one who is offending YOU?

    Samkim, I really have tried to be tolerant in this discussion with you, but I really do not like to argue just for arguments sake (unlike 90% of the rest of the off-topic people here). I am just going to stop talking here. You go ahead without me.
  14. #834  
    My god, a person could get dizzy arguing with him. LOL
  15. #835  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze
    The government spends 1.8 Billion dollars a year researching global warming, but before that research is released, the white house literally filters it through an Exxon Lobbyist. One with no training in science, and one who actually changes the text of the reasearch to fit his political agenda.
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    And no, the White House didn't literally filter research through an Exxon lobbyist. That's a false and misleading statement. (See how easy it is to identify those?) The guy was a government employee. If your position is correct, why do you have to lie?
    Lmao, now this is great.

    Oh man this is funny.

    Of course he is a government employee!!! He was an Exxon lobbyist with no training in science, who was LITERALLY placed in charge of global warming study by the president!! Where he promptly edited the scientific opinions of the researchers to show that global warming is only a theory, got fired when it was exposed, and went back to work for Exxon. LOL

    My god just look at what you typed, lmao.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------

  16. #836  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    And no, the White House didn't literally filter research through an Exxon lobbyist. That's a false and misleading statement. (See how easy it is to identify those?) The guy was a government employee.
    Is this really the most significant point you can make in this discussion? Of course we understand that Cooney was not really REALLY an Exxon lobbyist when he "corrected" that text, but since he was one before and after being a government employee, Blaze's characterization isn't really off the mark (even if it would not pass in a peer-reviewed scientific journal).

    How about some big picture thinking instead of splitting hair and focusing on semantics?

    Or were you one of those who keeps smoking because it is not yet really, really proven that smoking causes cancer, or do you think nothing should be done about obese children because we don't really, really know that obesity greatly increases the risk of getting diabetes or other diseases?

    Do you think the Bush administration claims global warming is no concern (or doesn't really exist at all) because they are sooooo careful about interpretation of scientific results, or because they are so close to the oil industry?

    It is high time to start acting, like the rest of the developed world. Stop splitting hair, get going. The worst that can happen is that you don't totally depend on Middle East oil so much any longer... imagine that, Iran couldn't blackmail you with the oil price that easily, wouldn't that be cool?
    Last edited by clulup; 07/03/2006 at 12:11 PM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  17. #837  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    How about some big picture thinking instead of splitting hair and focusing on semantics?
    Wait until you hear the line on "standard" verus "non-standard" datamining he uses to defend the President's database with all our phone numbers in it. That one is a classic.
  18. #838  
    And while we are back on the substance of the matter at hand, have you seen or talked about this yet clulup?

    BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
    The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

    Naomi Oreskes
    American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

    Of the 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change", there were exactly zero that disagred with the consensus opinion (human modification of climate).

    However, in their defense, Exxon lobbyists were not allowed to modify the results.
  19. #839  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Samkim, this is what I hear you telling me: the scientists who wrote the two articles are not dishonest or immoral, but I am dishonest and immoral for disagreeing with your opinion on them.
    No. Stop making things up. I said it very clearly:
    "...promoting statements that you know to be biased and political is immoral, IMO."


    You say they portray global warming as fact, but look at the science article which clearly states they could be wrong and dont have all the data. And after pointing that out, I am branded as dishonest and immoral. Don't you understand that?
    "...promoting statements that you know to be biased and political is immoral, IMO."


    I believe what you are most upset about, is my saying you want to ignore or trivialize any data on global warming as much as you can. If that is an incorrect assumption, please accept my apologies, but I believe this is something any reasonable person would suspect, based on all of your posts in this thread.
    I believe in understanding and accurately explaining the science. I believe in honestly describing the strengths of the case and the weaknesses. If you see anything that I've written that is false or misleading, I invite you to quote me.


    So you've called me dishonest and immoral but you also call me a liar to boot. Oh yes, and I am the one who is offending YOU?
    Yes. You say it's okay to put out misleading statements, and you repeatedly make false statements about me. That's offensive.
    Last edited by samkim; 07/03/2006 at 02:18 PM.
  20. #840  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Of course he is a government employee!!!
    Then why did you lie?

Posting Permissions