View Single Post
Old 05-28-2009, 10:48 AM   #70
Dagobahn Eagle
@Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Well, since we we know that AGW alarmists typically gild the lilly for maximum political effect, why must the other side necessarily be guilty of such unethical behavior as well? Funding from ExxonMobil doesn't axiomatically = malfeasance. That kind of claim seems more the tactic of someone losing the argument.
So when scientists agreeing with AGW are hypothetically funded by interest organizations (which ones, by the way?), then it's a sign AGW is false, but when anti-AGW scientists are caught being funded by the petroleum industry it's "not necessarily malfesance". Ok.

It's probably no wonder that many in this country list AGW/GW farther down their lists of concerns when polled.
What with 9/11 and the financial crisis, not to mention that many of them believe they live in areas that won't be affected, of course it isn't.

Too much hype and not enough proof. Using achilles "logic", how many of the 9000+ PhDs and over 20000 other scientists that oppose AGW serve on the boards of ExxonMobil and other industrial "giants".
Again with the Creationist arguments - "I have a petition in which {arbitrary number here} scientists express their disbelief in evolution!". Then you actually go into the list and lo and behold, every one of them either has a degree from a diploma mill or in an irrelevant field.

Perhaps you can provide such detailed information.
Of course I can't. I'm not going to trawl through 3000 names and do a thorough investigation of every single one to see if they really exist, have attended the university they claim they've attended, and gotten the degree they claim they possess. I'm not going to search university records to see who's earned what or investigate the individual universities to see which ones are diploma mills or otherwise untrustworthy. All this you know, which is why you compile and/or post such gargantuan lists in the first place. Publishing huge reports or epic lists of names for then to slam the opposition when they don't quit their jobs and lock themselves in their basements to spend a month of full-time work to debunk it is a common strategy of people peddling alternative medicine, Creationism, and now AGW denial. Same soup, new bowl.

Afterall, it's your "side" that contends that all those people are on big industry's payrolls (
Let's recap here: You guys claim that everyone who disagrees with you are bribed by some invisible NWO-style entity. You then put forward a scientist who actually is funded by an interest organization. When I point this out, you not only shake your head and ask me what it matters who does the funding, but also tell me I am the one to say the opposition is part of a massive bribery scheme. Projecting much?

I pointed out that Lindzen was funded by an oil company, not that "all those people" are. Unless Lindzen is impersonating all of them, of course.

or just "stupid" when you can't prove the former)..
Blatant strawman #2. I never said the thousands of scientists on your list were stupid, nor did I say you were. I'm stating that most skeptics I've come across have turned out to be uninformed on the subject. Not knowing the details of a given subject does not equal stupidity.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: