Re: Skepticism is good, and necessary.

1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #322,561 by rcareaga 3/8/10 10:46:03 PM Reply	Re: Skepticism is good, and necessary. Real skepticism good. Phony skepticism (certitude in skepticism's raiment) not so much. Dogmatic skepticism even less so. Would you be as indulgent of boxley if he weighed in as frequently on behalf of Young Earth creationists as he does on behalf of global warming denialists? If not, why not? After all, Darwinism is merely a "theory," hey? Surely we ought to give equal weight to the opinions—pardon me, to the findings—of the Biblical literalists, don't you think? And if not, why be so indulgent with Master Oxley? cordially,
Post #322,562 by Another Scott 3/8/10 10:55:16 PM Reply	I think he's not a lost cause. He is willing to accept some evidence, unlike the creationists. And, as he says, he accepts the evidence but disagrees with (IMO strawman) policy arguments that he thinks the IPCC and others are pushing. I appreciate the challenge he offers. Why? Well I see some of myself in some of his arguments. I was briefly taken in by McI & McK and their criticism of the "hockey stick" graph; and I remember being a fan of Neal Bortz as a kid. For a while. :-/ It's good to be forced to support propositions. Sites that only have similar posters are boring. :-) But, yeah, he needs better sources. ;-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #322,565 by boxley 3/9/10 8:53:59 AM Reply	noaa isnt a good source and wikipedia is? tough crowd If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)

95% chance that Man is to blame for global warming - (lincoln) - (23) - March 8, 2010, 05:50:18 PM EST

heard on NPR about ten years ago... - (rcareaga) - (1) - March 8, 2010, 06:09:01 PM EST

7. Ergo, Vegans of the world Unite! - (Ashton) - March 8, 2010, 07:17:15 PM EST

Re: 95% chance that Man is to blame for global warming - (boxley) - (20) - March 8, 2010, 07:25:27 PM EST

Eh? - (Another Scott) - (19) - March 8, 2010, 08:41:12 PM EST

You don't understand - (rcareaga) - (7) - March 8, 2010, 09:22:24 PM EST

sorry to see you sick - (boxley) - (2) - March 8, 2010, 09:42:22 PM EST

Re: sorry to see you sick - (lincoln) - (1) - March 9, 2010, 01:20:29 PM EST

the code, not the compiler -NT - (boxley) - March 9, 2010, 01:28:47 PM EST

Skepticism is good, and necessary. - (Another Scott) - (3) - March 8, 2010, 10:34:03 PM EST

Re: Skepticism is good, and necessary. - (rcareaga) - (2) - March 8, 2010, 10:46:03 PM EST

I think he's not a lost cause. - (Another Scott) - (1) - March 8, 2010, 10:55:16 PM EST

noaa isnt a good source and wikipedia is? tough crowd -NT - (boxley) - March 9, 2010, 08:53:59 AM EST

sorry no wikiagwing allowed - (boxley) - (10) - March 8, 2010, 09:24:51 PM EST

Hmmm. - (Another Scott) - (9) - March 8, 2010, 10:26:08 PM EST

if c02 has risen by 65 ppm in the last 40 years - (boxley) - (8) - March 9, 2010, 09:01:04 AM EST

And why are those companies doing that work? -NT - (drook) - (7) - March 9, 2010, 09:49:42 AM EST

because they are AGW folks and want to make a dollar as well - (boxley) - (6) - March 9, 2010, 11:48:13 AM EST

Let's see if I've got this straight - (drook) - (5) - March 9, 2010, 02:14:10 PM EST

beating the straw man with the red herring again? - (boxley) - (4) - March 9, 2010, 02:31:49 PM EST

Cap and trade is trying to appease Republicans - (drook) - March 9, 2010, 02:59:36 PM EST

Herein you see the issue - (Silverlock) - (2) - March 9, 2010, 09:50:11 PM EST

if gore wants money for it Im against it science be damned -NT - (boxley) - (1) - March 9, 2010, 10:01:22 PM EST

Point made. -NT - (Silverlock) - March 9, 2010, 10:04:07 PM EST

iwethey.org

+++ATH
50 ms