Panthera tigris FC said:
I believe that would make you the one with the double standards, saying " They don't even ask Al Gore to do that, or Flannery, or any other alramist [sic] for that matter". So you approve of such behaviour. I would also say that much of the work of the people you refer to has been referenced and can be verified.
I only ask, because it would be nice to verify what you are saying. Unlike what you say above your posts and their contents aren't "opinions" but statements of fact. I would just like to know the source of your facts. Otherwise they are just blind assertions (or even worse, blatant mistruths). Of course this is PRE, but you are making claims that are verifiable and in the absence of "footnotes" or links to the source of your information it is all too easy to disregard what you are saying. It also comes across a pretty evasive to respond in the way you have - why not just support your claims?
I have been very open about what I do on other threads in this forum. I am a scientist and lecturer (gold star for you!), but that has nothing to do with why I ask for your sources (beyond the fact that training in science is good for honing the BS detector). I ask for the reasons outlined above.
Another winner I have backed, its been a good week. Was going to say Lecturer, your self-graded higher intellect jumps off the page. Surely there are other forums where there may be stiffer competition, or do you enjoy trying to spiflicate people on here, like a big fish? IF you can't out debate the dumbsters on PRE, what hope is there for you in your profession? What I do also hones the BS detector, and i won't go into what other type of detectors because I will refrain from getting too personal, even though you are almost calling me a BS artist.
The world of the Internet is full of sources for both sides of the argument, and I could, if i had the inclination, provide a source for every assertion, opinion, and fact, that I throw up here. And if i couldn't, i could twist them enough to baffle most people anyway - sound familiar? You know i could source those claims, they are everywhere, and I am not going to do that at your request, Sir.
I will ask, have you read the emails, all of them?
I enjoy a debate, an argument for that matter, that is had with respect. But there is no respect for the intellect of global warming skeptics (now Climate Change - hot or cold, doesn't matter any more) - by many people (read 'believers') in the media, the Government, or on the blogs like Crikey, and you fit that category, even if you try and camouflage it.
You are trained as a scientist, great, but cannot you make an argument without ramming your credentials down people's throats or claiming the intellectual high ground?
If your true aim is to influence the beliefs of skeptics, or change their minds, then you need to soften the way you go about it, as do many others.
Sorry, the old school teacher is coming out in me.
In a previous post you asked me to use science to explain melting polar ice, rising sea levels, increased average temperatures and increased atmospheric level of co2. There are factual measurements here - ones that haven't been skewed that is - that most skeptics do not refute - it is man's influence on these that people are skeptical about. And they still are because the alarmists spoil the party.
Tell the story and explain the facts without the arrogance, propaganda, insults amd moral grand-standing. Sorry, that is not all necessarily aimed at you, but there are elements of this within your postings. I have read much that has been written that gives reasons, other than man's emissions, for the above situations occurring.
The point? As a science layman, I need it to be explained better without the guilt trip please - i am just not going to take someone's word for it because they are a scientist with no vested interests - apparently (those emails are not good, even though you claim they simply show the politcal side of the issue. Your own denial?)
