Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 155
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I think global warming is bunk and manufactured by folks that think they are smarter than common folks. I do believe the earth goes through cycles of cooling and warming. I think it arrogant to believ

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

Read and understood Mike.

However if you look back upon the posts the only person that started to bring politics and religion into the thread was Caoimhín. Nobody brought these things into the mix before him. That is an indisputable fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, back to global warming and greeniness,

About a month ago, I was channel surfing and I landed on a program called Conspiracy Factor or Conspiracy Theory or something like that. It's a kind of reality show hosted by that former navy seal, wrestler, failed actor, former governor, clownish character, Jessie Ventura, where they dig into stuff and look for the truth. I generally don't think much of Ventura; hell, if you total up the ages of the two or three young research assistants working for him on the show you probably have Ventura's IQ - nonetheless, those young folks are pretty fresh and energetic - I was paying attention to what they were finding.

They laid out a pretty good case to show how the carbon credit thing is a huge scam perpetrated by a guy who used to be with the UN but had been discredited, is making lots of money off the sale of carbon credits, but is now basically hiding out in China.

Then they tracked down and talked to some of the folks involved in this whole global warming science issue. They talked to a guy who was one of the folks that peer reviewed the initial global warming theory stuff. He related how the original draft for what was released by the researchers had stuff in it that discredited the global warming theory and how that information was subsequently edited out of what was released to the public.

Anyway, I'm sure that a lot of what was shown was heavily edited to favor the show's obvious purpose - to show that global warming is a lie - but some of what some of the folks interviewed said, and their credentials to be able to say it, makes one wonder.

As I said previously in this thread, I don't know who to believe anymore. The part of me that likes nature and enjoys the hell out of a clean stream wants very much to believe that we're trashing this rock and we need to do something about it is telling me one thing, and the other part, the ex-cop part, is telling me that the representation of global warming that we're seeing is a thin veneer and that there's more to this "emergency" than meets the eye.

If there's proof out there, I'd sure like to see some of it.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'd sure hate to see this thread turn into a pigpile or worse, a witch hunt.

Fact is: Caoimhin made 'sciencey' post and when challenged, went ad hominem.

Not exactly a sign of a man with a strong position, I'd say. Now the thread has become cluttered with nonsense that looks a whole lot like a few people trying to change the subject in order to save Caoimhin from the embarrassment he bought himself by posting such foolishness. Or maybe there are just some people who enjoy posting to busy threads so they feel more involved. I honestly don't know....

So, if someone with a sensible, defendable point of view posts something of value relating to the original post, shoot me an email or something would you?

Until then...

Peace out,

Jimmy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'd sure hate to see this thread turn into a pigpile or worse, a witch hunt.

Fact is: Caoimhin made 'sciencey' post and when challenged, went ad hominem.

Not exactly a sign of a man with a strong position, I'd say. Now the thread has become cluttered with nonsense that looks a whole lot like a few people trying to change the subject in order to save Caoimhin from the embarrassment he bought himself by posting such foolishness. Or maybe there are just some people who enjoy posting to busy threads so they feel more involved. I honestly don't know....

So, if someone with a sensible, defendable point of view posts something of value relating to the original post, shoot me an email or something would you?

Until then...

Peace out,

Jimmy

I'll take Jim's que and bow out as well. It's time to turn the lights out, good night.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here he is talking about the same thing. http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_insp ... llacy.html

How do you change the link to one word?

Ha! Out pops the Catholic church in his post over there. That boy has an over active imagination.

From a person over at The Inspection News:

Obviously, the flat vs. round Earth issue is about much more than the geometric shape of the planet. It is actually more about the head-in-the-sand conservatives vs. those of us who have managed to pull our heads out and get a glimpse of something other than just what we've been told by the "authorities" (those steeped in the fundamentally-flawed thinking of the Newtonian model of the Universe). As information has become more readily available to the masses, the number of conservatives is dwindling. This has caused the remaining fundamentalists to ramp up their aberrant behavior in an effort to compensate for their losses. By the way, how is that working out for you?

While I can empathize with their plight, education is just a book or two and a few thoughts away; inexpensive; and readily accessible to all. There is no longer even a lame excuse for being conservative. But, if it suits you, be that way. The world will continue to change, your seeming refusal to do so notwithstanding.

I'll buy him a beer anytime.

On the internet circuit Caoimhín is known as a Troll, something that shouldn't be fed.. Ok, now I'll catch the lights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here he is talking about the same thing. http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_insp ... llacy.html

How do you change the link to one word?

Phillip, in the posting form (you get there by using the "reply to topic" button) you will see a little globe button on the format line at the top.

If you hit that it will bring up a box for the text you wish to use and then one for pasting the link. Be sure to not double up the http:// bit. You may get a security alert asking you to allow scripts the first time. Allow them and hit the globe button again. If you look at this post now you can see that I added the same link below but with a short name..."textlink"

textlink

Link to post
Share on other sites

I never knew how to do that. I just put a left bracket (I'll use parenthesis here so you can see what I mean), stick url= inside the first bracket, quotation mark, the link, quotation mark, the right bracket, the words I want to substitute, left bracket, /url, and then the right bracket.

(url="http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/general-chit-chat-home-inspectors-commercial-inspectors/18231-green-fallacy.html")demonstration(/url)

If you do exactly the same thing and replace it with brackets, you get a one-word link.

demonstration

Richard's way is probably easier; I just never bothered to learn what all that crap was at the top of the box.

Terry,

If you disagree with Caoimhín on this global warming thing, so be it, but there's no need to get nasty about it; and I think that saying that he's considered a troll is kind of extreme.

Caoimhín has always been a friend to this site and a lot of the information he has provided here has been pretty solid. We've all been grateful and have benefited from the good information that he's provided here over the years.

You guys are piling on because he hasn't responded to Jim yet. I get that, but keep in mind that his business takes him out of town a lot. He might not be anywhere near a computer. Even if he is, he might not be near his computer and is therefore unable to provide a counter argument along with references until he's back home.

Why not wait for an answer like Jim is doing before casting any more aspersions?

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites

kurts

Huh.....I always wondered how to do that.....

This is the quickest 5 pager I've seen @ TIJ.........it really went downhill fast......

Kurt, if you look back through the posts you will see where Caoimhín pulled all the dirty tricks in trying to discredit anyone that disagreed. It is the typical character assassination stunts that people like Caoimhín turn to in the hopes of making the other person look bad.

When all else fails try and tie the other person to the thing that some folks love to hate - Al Gore.

As I said before it is true strawman tactics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Consensus among scientists maybe. But scientific consensus, I struggle with that one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Caiman has always been a friend to this site and a lot of the information he has provided here has been pretty solid. We've all been grateful and have benefited from the good information that he's provided here over the years.

Caoimhín has a personal agenda that he likes to push - if it fits in with the topic being discussed at the moment, and meets with general approval, all is cool.

Unfortunately when someone speaks up against his personal opinion he then resorts to personal attacks trying to discredit his opponent. That is when he brings politics and religion into the mix trying to throw as much mud against the wall as he can. He stops at nothing when he is trying to make the other person look bad. That's the truth Mike and is an indisputable fact.

Protect him if you want - you must think that he lends some kind of credibility to this web site.

I'm sure he will be back to post a rebuttal.

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player

That struts and frets his hour upon the stage

And then is heard no more: it is a tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing.

Surely we don't have anything against Shakespeare.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Protect him if you want - you must think that he lends some kind of credibility to this web site.

No,

Any "credibility" - if you want to call it that - which this site has is the result of members keeping it professional, staying away from politics and religion and keeping it about as much factual stuff as is possible.

I don't expect every guest that comes here to be 100% correct an anything they assert here any more than I expect any of you to believe that 100% of everything I type here is 100% accurate 100% of the time, 'cuz it isn't. What I do expect is that guest keep it civil and not resort to the kind of stuff that might get them popped in the mouth if they'd said it to someone who's in the same room with them.

If you want to be a Jim Bushart and spend endless hours working overtime trying to discredit someone you have a personal dislike for, do it over on the soap opera where they revel in that kind of nonsense. Over here, we generally try and avoid that.

Jim asked the guy to back up his statement with facts. So far, the guy hasn't done that and we're waiting to see if that happens.

All of this other shite - what's going on on other forums - doesn't interest me in the least. I'm only concerned about what happens here and the only thing I'm protecting is this site.

It's starting to look like Caoimhín isn't the only one posting here who's got an agenda.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites

Protect him if you want - you must think that he lends some kind of credibility to this web site.

No,

Any "credibility" - if you want to call it that - which this site has is the result of members keeping it professional, staying away from politics and religion and keeping it about as much factual stuff as is possible.

Thank you Mike.

Then please tell "others" not to bring their politics AND religion into the mix. Both of which had entered this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That makes no sense.

It make sense to me.

You can have consensus among people for whatever reason. So consensus among whoever can be valid.

However, the practice of science itself does not need, and if exercised properly, should not include consensus. Science is about attempting to reach conclusions based on facts.

Did you read the green meanie article I posted? Tell me if you see anything wrong with that article. Don't attack the people who did the writings. Challenge the substance of the article. Maybe I missed something.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing is, like all contentious subjects, there are reasonable arguments for both sides of the global warming issue. Read Superfreakonomics. According to the author, belches and flatulence generated by cows is one of the largest sources of supposed damage to the ozone layer.

But what are we gonna do? Slaughter the cattle and become vegetarians? Are the author's sources even correct? I don't know, and I don't have time to research the researchers and determine whether their data is legit or poppycock.

This thread is a perfect example of how volatile a scientific discussion can become when emotions, religion, and politics are sprinkled into the stew.

I do know this . . . if I ever find myself in a rumble, I'd love to have Terry McCann by my side. That guy has pluck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...