Originally posted by DA Morgan:
CATO is not credible on science. Gong!
how did i know that you would say that anyone that disagreed with you was not credible or a real science.
how sad
DA Morgan wrote:
BBC ... a reputable news organization...
of course. the ppl that wrote the article agreed with you so it has to be reputable
...CATO ... well lets use their own words.
Source:
http://www.cato.org/about/about.html "The Cato Institute seeks to broaden the parameters of public policy debate to allow consideration of the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets and peace. Toward that goal, the Institute strives to achieve greater involvement of the intelligent, concerned lay public in questions of policy and the proper role of government."
Perhaps the concepts of politics <> science is beyond your scope. But not everyone on this planet is an American. Not everyone on this planet wants to be an American. And not everyone that is an American is all that thrilled with the CATO Institute's neo-con politics.
But one thing for sure ... you using them as a reference shows us that you can't separate philosophy from fact. Not exactly a huge surprise.
what difference does it matter who hosted the site. its the statement by the scientist that is important. some sites will post things no matter how little news it makes. THEY are not worried about making headlines to get ppl to buy their papers.
the thing is you asked for a meteorologist that disagreed with you and instead of paying attension to the two ppl i gave you OR the fact the the one person that did the research that did agree with you said it was only 6 percent increase in intensity over the next 80 years.
this is your idea of a scientific debate. if you cant win the arguement on merit, find something to insult the other so that the arguement goes away from the facts you cant argue with.
