Brandon Whitmore Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 Just to warn y'all. I picked up a tracking cookie, and had my computer do some crazy stuff after clicking on the link in the post below. I did, and was surprised by what I found. Scroll down to post #5. Very telling. Joe Hancaviz Nazareth, PA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dirks Jr Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 Here's an interesting article on the subject. http://masterresource.org/?p=4307 Also on the subject, I heard it explained like this. You look into a field and see a flock of geese. All of them are white. You come up with a theory that all geese are white. Science seeks to disprove theories so when you eventually see a black goose, your theory is disproved. Those that push the man made global warming theory are only counting white geese. They are not even looking for the black ones. Even then, when a black goose is shown to them, they ignore it. How is that science? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspectorjoe Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 John, it's pretty ironic that Richard Lindzen, the author of the paper cited in that article (on an energy industry blog) appears to be one of those who sees the black goose, but ignores it. Here is some info on Richard Lindzen from Logicalscience.com. There is a lot more money behind those denying climate change than there is those who are in your words, pushing it. The Logical Science mission statement: When scientific evidence and the interests of an oligopoly or monopoly conflict, science is often suppressed, spun, edited and even deleted. This was true with big tobacco and it is true now with the 3 trillion dollar energy industry. Our goal is to simply defend the international scientific consensus and summarize the industrial misinformation campaign in a way any layman can understand. Every quote, every fact, every sentence will be sourced so the user can quickly and easily check the facts for his or herself. We do not perform any original research. This website merely repeats what the experts are already saying. This website is non-profit. It is built entirely from spare time and out of pocket money. This makes the work slow but it is the best way to minimize any conflicts of interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dirks Jr Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 Well, the header text of logicalscience.com uses the words "scientific consensus" That's an oxymoron. There is no "consensus" in true science. http://www.green-meanie.com/global-warming/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dirks Jr Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 Also, if you look at the bio on the author of Logical Science, it sure looks like he is subjective on the matter of man made global warming. http://www.logicalscience.com/contribut ... butors.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspectorjoe Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 Well, the header text of logicalscience.com uses the words "scientific consensus" That's an oxymoron. There is no "consensus" in true science. But there is consensus among scientists. Consensus: majority of opinion It's explained here: The Consensus on Global Warming Also, if you look at the bio on the author of Logical Science, it sure looks like he is subjective on the matter of man made global warming. He's got a point of view of course. He also seems to be fair. You have a problem with the following part of his bio? "I have a keen interest in anthropogenic climate change as I strongly believe anyone with a highschool education can see the flaws in the vast majority of the arguments used by climate change deniers and skeptics. If I am doing my job correctly, you don't have to believe me, because you can always check the references. I don't want people to have to believe me, because that's not what science is about. You should look at the facts and draw your own conclusions. If you can prove me wrong on something I will shake your hand and thank you for teaching me something new." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgbinspect Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 By the way mate, didnt realize you were british but wasn't it one of your own who stated "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" I beleive Isaac Newton if my memory serves me correctly.Why would there not be repercussions for Putting things in an unatural way into our atmosphere, whether it be tommorow or 1000 years from now? I do believe that CaoimhÃn is from the Emerald Isle. So is my Grandfather - and that means? He likes Guinness! Guinness is way too high on carbs and calories. Pick another. I'm guilty of staying to the light side of all of this. simply because, regardles of what anyone believes, our ability to affect any of what has been discussed here happens where the rubber meets the road.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dirks Jr Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 Joe, science has nothing to do with opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Morrison Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 Well, the header text of logicalscience.com uses the words "scientific consensus" That's an oxymoron. There is no "consensus" in true science. http://www.green-meanie.com/global-warming/ Really? Gravity and evolution are theories. Are you sure there is no scientific consensus on them? Still waiting on Caoimhin... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob White Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 This is what happens when folks discuss religion on forums like this.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terence McCann Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 This is what happens when folks discuss religion on forums like this.... And politics... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terence McCann Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 First off, there is general (though not unanimous) agreement in the scientific community that Global Warming is real and human activity can affect it. Sorry Jim ââ¬â Youââ¬â¢re on the wrong side of objective facts (again). There is NOT general agreement in the scientific community that GW is real. There is general agreement in the Hollywood community, in the Democratic Party and on The Left ââ¬â but the general agreement in the scientific community is that there is NO SUCH THING as Global Warming. Sorry mate, I hate to tell you this, Al Gore is not a scientist. Cheers! CaoimhÃn P. Connell Forensic Industrial Hygienist www.forensic-applications.com (The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.) AMDG This was the first post where politics got dragged into the mix - hence the strawman argument. It provides a window of opportunity to not only throw Jim under the bus (because he happens to disagee, therefore the very classy statement: Sorry Jim ââ¬â Youââ¬â¢re on the wrong side of objective facts (again)) but to turn the topic around to include Hollywood, the Democrats, the Left and just for good measure link Jim, in an obtuse way, as stating Al Gore is/was a scientist. Very clever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob White Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 This is what happens when folks discuss religion on forums like this.... And politics... I was thinking of the lesser used definition of religion: something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience, and yes AGW warming politics is, to me, included within that definition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terence McCann Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 This is what happens when folks discuss religion on forums like this.... And politics... I was thinking of the lesser used definition of religion: something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience, and yes AGW warming politics is, to me, included within that definition. Sorry Bob - I thought you were refering to this post where CaoimhÃn brought his religion into the mix: Look, if you are advocating the stewardship of the Earth, then Iââ¬â¢m all on-board. As a Catholic, my church has been advocating stewardship of the Earth and her resources for over 2,000 years. Catholics are the original ââ¬ÅConservationists.â⬠Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terence McCann Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 At this juncture I must say thanks to Mike et al. for letting this play out. They could have easily pulled the plug stating numerous infractions of forum policy while trying to protect and shelter. Takes big brass ones - thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terence McCann Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 Look, if you are advocating the stewardship of the Earth, then Iââ¬â¢m all on-board. As a Catholic, my church has been advocating stewardship of the Earth and her resources for over 2,000 years. Catholics are the original ââ¬ÅConservationists.â⬠Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 They could have easily pulled the plug stating numerous infractions of forum policy while trying to protect and shelter. Protect & shelter? Perhaps we should leave that to Mike O. He's good at it and he does it in a civil manner. Nothing wrong with sending him a PM suggesting the censor of a post with inflammatory material. Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Fabry Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 Honestly, I find the whole thread distasteful. The original post has more sensation than information. I almost nixed it after first read before anyone replied. It's not really a home inspector issue and it's a Catholic issue even less. I'm disappointed in the pervasive lack of science and logic throughout. Topics on a home inspector board should be relatively black and white and anything that isn't black and white is probably a vapor diffusion isssue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terence McCann Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 They could have easily pulled the plug stating numerous infractions of forum policy while trying to protect and shelter. Protect & shelter? Perhaps we should leave that to Mike O. He's good at it and he does it in a civil manner. Nothing wrong with sending him a PM suggesting the censor of a post with inflammatory material. Marc You missed the point Marc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terence McCann Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 Honestly, I find the whole thread distasteful. The original post has more sensation than information. I almost nixed it after first read before anyone replied. It's not really a home inspector issue and it's a Catholic issue even less. I'm disappointed in the pervasive lack of science and logic throughout. Topics on a home inspector board should be relatively black and white. Chad, I agree but please leave it go on. All these things that are being discussed were first brought up by Caoimhin. It's only when people push back that it makes others uneasy. He shouldn't get away with making such broad stroke comments. It's ok to push back. Also, when intelligent folks Google around they should be able to look at a discussion like this and make up their own mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 It's only when people push back that it makes others uneasy. He shouldn't get away with making such broad stroke comments. It's ok to push back. There's confrontation and there's consultation. Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hausdok Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 Even though it is brushing up against religion and politics, I left the thread up because I don't think anyone has crossed the line yet. However, the first time a protestant, jew, muslim, wiccan, druid or any other religion jumps in here and starts arguing about religion and not about global warming or greeniness, or the first time someone gets on here and starts arguing democrat versus republican versus tea party or Obama versus Bush or Reagan or any of that crap, the pruning shears are coming out and I'll either delete the entire thread or cut up the offending post, and any subsequent posts objecting to the pruning shears, and I won't give a rat's ass how loud anyone bellows. Keep it about the science. If there is proof that global warming is a lie and we can learn about that, let's see it. Just keep the religion and political partisanship out of it. That shouldn't be too hard. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terence McCann Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 It's only when people push back that it makes others uneasy. He shouldn't get away with making such broad stroke comments. It's ok to push back. There's confrontation and there's consultation. Marc Sorry Jim ââ¬â Youââ¬â¢re on the wrong side of objective facts (again). Confrontation or consulation Marc? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 Confrontation for sure. My apologies Terance. My post was a suggestion to all members, not just you. Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgbinspect Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 The thread certainly has proved to be a lightning rod, based upon the number of replies and views. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.