http://climatedebatedaily.com/
Printable View
Interesting site. Thanks for posting it.
and here is the breakdown:Quote:
Vested interests are an enemy of sound science, and the climategate scientists have a vested interest in promoting belief in the catastrophic imminence of global warming ...continue » [more] [riposte]
that quote was from an op-ed by a blatantly right-wing hack - one who has frequently sided with vested interests against scientists [[he also fails miserably to explain what the vested interests were. the "riposte" comes from the single most respected scientific journal on the planet - Nature.
which would a logical human believe?
Rb...read one of the many sources from the skeptical side of the argument? If not, how do you think that you can refute it?
One clue...you can't simply parrot the smear and propaganda from the alarmists about the material...YOU MUST REFUTE THE ACTUAL CONCEPTS.
the riposte, from a far more trustworthy source, refutes it quite well.Quote:
Originally Posted by ccbatson
QED
you lose, again
now you must refute the 1000s of articles written by scientists and appearing in peer reviewed journals. YOU must prove the allegations you continue to make that the 100s of climatologists have ulterior motives. I have proven, via their connection to Hearland Inst and fossil fuel industry money, that virtually ALL of your sources rely on people with a clearly vested interest
the riposte refutes it quite well
oh, and please tell me which particular source I am parroting.
Nobody needs to refute them...they spent/lost their credibility...it's toast now, gone, all invalidated. Furthermore, if they were to try to start over, the black mark left by the corruption and deception exposed plus the basic fact that these theories are false, means they have no chance of redemption.
Here is an interesting question....aren't the former believers really really angry? Skeptics have never invested their trust [[and more), but believers?? I would be so pissed off if I were fooled like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccbatson
meaning: we CAN'T refute them, so we will muddy the waters enough so the scientifically illiterate will think there is actually reason to doubt the facts.
in essence, the soul of every one of your wing-nut arguments on any given subject
Then I suppose that you should start getting pissed off, as you've been fooled for years. Fooled being a nice way to put it. There's nothing to be "former" about. Your position is flawed. Maybe you should reboot?Quote:
Originally Posted by ccbatson
Stosh...As I have done, if you are going to make a claim, you must say why and based on what in order to be taken seriously.
That's incredibly odd, and ironic, coming from someone like you.Quote:
Originally Posted by ccbatson
Try following your own advice.
Look at my posts man...I always back up my point of view with arguments or references [[being a debate, more the former).
You have done nothing of the sort. I will provide and example:Quote:
Originally Posted by ccbatson
**sigh**Quote:
CCbatcrazy: You libs and lefties are to scared to read! It's the fear and cowardice you all display!
d.mcc: care to provided sources and things to read?
CCbatcrazy: Perhaps if you read my original post more clearly, you wouldn't be so afraid to find all the information that I have told you about!
Debate? Is that how ~~~~~~~~~ is spelled in Batsonia? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by ccbatson
AP verdict: Climate emails show science not faked, but not pretty either:D
http://freep.com/article/20091212/NE...-pretty-either
Why the incessant reposting of this hogwash [[and deep down, you must know it is)?
To prove that you know nothing about anything unless someone hands it to you on a platter.
Your friends the thieves that stole the e-mails should be in jail. You like criminals it seems. Witness Rand's friend that was put to death for murder and kidnapping. Same principle. The admiration of the flawed.
Witness Obama's friends [[mass murdering) who got away with it [[Chavez, Castro, Guiverra, Ayers, Dorn, and on, and on).