Valid global warming criticism (looking for)

[SkepticLance]

Prime Evil.

Your arguments are leaving a very nasty taste in my mouth. To suggest that, because others use mud slinging tactics, that justifies you doing it also, reflects very badly on you and no-one else.

 

Sure, there is mud slinging on both sides. I read both sides of the global warming argument and have read both side's nastier tactics. Current paradigm supporters claim their opponents are in the pay of oil companies, when they are not. Skeptics claim that their opponents are nailing down cushy jobs by 'going with the flow' when they know they are on shaky ground.

 

Prime Evil. Both arguments are dirty. I am not going to indulge, and I am asking you, please, clean up your act!

 

Cthulhu.

We still have not reached a meeting of the minds. However, your arguments are clean and polite. Thank you.

[daneeka]

The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition

http://www.climatescience.org.nz/

 

28/04/2006 - 60 Scientists Send Open Letter To Canadian Prime Minister

"60 leading world climate scientists' date=' including four from New Zealand, have written to the Prime Minister of Canada urging a review of climate change science and the commitment to Kyoto"

 

1. They are not all scientists, yet are presented as such.

2. They claim that they are experts and that others are not.

3. They are engaging in politics, not science, but present it as science.

4. Their financial and political motives are suspect, yet they don't make them known.

 

So tell me more about this The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.

Where do they get their funding?[/quote']

 

I've never heard of them however, from what I have gained from looking at their website, I think we need independent institutions like this; we need people who are knowledgeable enough to question the information that, all to frequently, becomes almost dogmatic among society.

 

3. They are engaging in politics, not science, but present it as science.

 

I think their presentation is fine. What's more, science is political - governments commonly use science as a political tool - so I hardly think scientists engaging in politics is a bad thing. I mean, politicians often engage in science...

 

But this is getting off topic isn't it...so I'm just going to say this: science will not advance without debate - we need people to ask questions (isn't that what science is all about?) - but argument is not debate and tends to lead to entirely different outcomes.

[Prime-Evil]

Prime Evil.

Your arguments are leaving a very nasty taste in my mouth. To suggest that' date=' because others use mud slinging tactics, that justifies you doing it also, reflects very badly on you and no-one else.

 

Sure, there is mud slinging on both sides. I read both sides of the global warming argument and have read both side's nastier tactics. Current paradigm supporters claim their opponents are in the pay of oil companies, when they are not. Skeptics claim that their opponents are nailing down cushy jobs by 'going with the flow' when they know they are on shaky ground.

 

Prime Evil. Both arguments are dirty. I am not going to indulge, and I am asking you, please, clean up your act!

 

Cthulhu.

We still have not reached a meeting of the minds. However, your arguments are clean and polite. Thank you.[/quote']Perhaps we are just different personality types, but I see you as being hypocritical, so I chose to be hypocritical also. When you chose to be rational, I will be rational. Guilt only works if you let it batman.

 

This was your mudslinging link, not mine:

http://www.climatescience.org.nz/

 

Here is my type. What's yours?

http://typelogic.com/entp.html

"ENTPs have little patience with those they consider wrongheaded or unintelligent, and show little restraint in demonstrating this. However, they do tend to be extremely genial, if not charming, when not being harassed by life in general."

.