No Need to Panic About Global Warming?

brianlux wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Until then, a lot of you are simply cutting and pasting your opinions from green blogs.

Cutting and pasting? Like in pre-school? Did it ever occur to you that some of us actually educate ourselves on this matter?

Yes, cutting and pasting "thoughts"... in a way, it's worse than pre-school. Atleast in pre-school you can ask questions and it's encouraged to think outside the box. Instead, this involves no questioning (or critical-thinking) whatsoever; so in that sense, it's worse. It's an unwavering/unquestioning belief in a theory backed by liberal blogs and a set of academics who's career (and in some cases grant money) is based upon this concept. It's an unquestioning belief in statistics and models generated by one side of the argument. It's the equivalent of a person coming on here and claiming to know everything about an issue because they read a bunch of articles on Fox News and listen to Rush Limbaugh . Neither party knows how the data is produced, or the models from which they come.


To me, both sides there... are not scientific.

I've said all along the whole concept of people such as yourself claiming they are educated on the issue (and claiming anyone who disagrees is not), yet potentially have a limited grasp of statistics and modeling, is scary (especially when the other party can show they do). I'm not saying anymore than it would help to be able to conceptualize every single piece of these models and the statistical matters, so you'd really understand how believable these statistics really are.

I've said all along, I don't know the answer to man-made global warming. I just don't go around acting like I know one way or the other, I'm questioning the entire thing and will continue to do so. That's what science is built on.

brianlux wrote:

Question everything. Hell yes. Don't believe in anthropogenic global warming? That's your right too. But I never made any personal statements about anyone's intelligence on this thread and I don't appreciate the insinuation that I don't use critical thinking or have an "unwavering/unquestioning belief" on any subject. You've chosen to make this issue personal. I'm not going there. I'm done here.

Ok. Fair enough.

My point was the - "educate yourself" comments you (and to be fair typically polaris make in threads on GW) are typically directed at anyone who semi-disagrees or raises a red flag on AGW. These comments come off as if the person making them (a AGW supporter) knows more. That is personal right there. My comments, may not have been perfectly laid out, but were a response to those sort of comments. I tried to make that clear when I wrote them by saying "educate yourself comments" (or something like that).

I get it. This an issue you feel passionate about. I understand that and respect that. That said, I do think there's a chance your opinion may be off. That's all.

As for the personal aspect, I don't see how I've made anything more personal than others (perhaps even yourself) have. I respect your input. I don't think you're a dummy. But, I also don't think you're opinion is any more valid than any others, regardless of the amount of liberal blogs you read.... or the amount of Fox New articles they read. As I said before, neither of them, in my opinion, really count as one being more educated.

SweetChildofMine wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

brianlux wrote:

Question everything. Hell yes. Don't believe in anthropogenic global warming? That's your right too. But I never made any personal statements about anyone's intelligence on this thread and I don't appreciate the insinuation that I don't use critical thinking or have an "unwavering/unquestioning belief" on any subject. You've chosen to make this issue personal. I'm not going there. I'm done here.

Ok. Fair enough.

My point was the - "educate yourself" comments you (and to be fair typically polaris make in threads on GW) are typically directed at anyone who semi-disagrees or raises a red flag on AGW. These comments come off as if the person making them (a AGW supporter) knows more. That is personal right there. My comments, may not have been perfectly laid out, but were a response to those sort of comments. I tried to make that clear when I wrote them by saying "educate yourself comments" (or something like that).

I get it. This an issue you feel passionate about. I understand that and respect that. That said, I do think there's a chance your opinion may be off. That's all.

As for the personal aspect, I don't see how I've made anything more personal than others (perhaps even yourself) have. I respect your input. I don't think you're a dummy. But, I also don't think you're opinion is any more valid than any others, regardless of the amount of liberal blogs you read.... or the amount of Fox New articles they read. As I said before, neither of them, in my opinion, really count as one being more educated.

nice try at saving face

You didnt not say that last post. You made comments in a manner condescending derogatory and self righteous. About taking the college course for all we know Brian could be a a leading Climatologist at University of CA-Berkley. ..

To me by your last paragraph whose opinion do you value or respect ? He doesnt have a valid opinion but you respect his imput? You are something else. Isnt his imput equal to his opinion?. Double talk bs. Im sorry kinda skirted around the issue and said absolutely nothing by contradicting yourself.

I'm not trying to "save face". I'm trying to be cordial.

As for what I've said, read the thread with an open mind and you'll see I've been much more cordial (and less condescending) throughout then those who disagree with me. I never brought up education until after others had several times. Further, if anyone here was a leading climatologist, they would agree that statistics is as important as I've said here. After all, its' how you try to prove all this stuff. As I've mentioned, anyone who claims to be educated in this material, but is uneducated in statistics does not really know what they are talking about because they are simply assuming all the statistics they read are accurate. That's a huge, huge (and most likely wrong on either side of the debate) assumption.

As for your last point - the word is "input", not "imput". I wouldn't have picked on you about spelling had you not done it twice in one paragraph. Everyone makes mistakes. Anyway, on to your point... I never contradicted myself at all. I've said all along that people who are completely convinced about Global Warming, are entitled to their opinion. Everyone is. But, I can also have the opinion that those who have absolutely no doubt in AGW are no different than those who come to the table with Fox News articles in their hand saying they know with certainty that Global Warming does not exist. To me, both aren't coming to the table with all the information needed to really know with certainty.

polaris_x wrote:

i know it's his thread ... but really - y'all should ignore him ... he complains that we/I are attacking him by asking him to educate himself when the truth is he still hasn't bothered to learn what global warming is ... then he accuses us of just copying and pasting blogs ... haha ... that is the most absurd thing ever ... apparently, only opponents of AGW are allowed to copy and paste links to fraud blogs ... meanwhile, i post a link from a meterological weather office and he just ignores it because he thinks it's a blog ... he wants US to read his bs but he won't bother to read ours ... it's totally disingenuous ... we read his shit and post rebuttals but he won't take the time to read ours ... sad ...

And here's a perfect example of what I was saying. According to this poster, no will ever know what global warming is until they agree with him.