Originally posted by DA Morgan:
dehammer wrote:
"what is insulting, is
1) you refuse to do the same, but constantly put down others for it."
Have you ever reviewed the pages of SAGG to see how many links I post versus yourself? The overwhelming majority of my original posts contains a link to the work. And it is almost always a science site rather than, as with Hoover, political or some non-profit engaged in a spin-control grudge match.
I look at what you post and almost never see a link and almost never do you respond to a request for a link with one. So in what way am I asking from you something other than what I do myself?
"2) when they are given, you either ignore them, or refuse to discuss them because the people that own the site are of a political nature other than you and your sites."
When you respond to a matter of science by posting from a political site then yes I refuse to engage just as I refuse to discuss genetics when someone is posting links to Genesis. If what you posted from Hoover's site, to take that example again, had some validity then there would have been legitimate science articles supporting it. There were not: I looked. It was pure political spin.
"3) when you do give a link, its invaribly to some political hacks opinion page"
Only if you consider researchers at CSIRO, NASA, NOAA, and major universities and colleges political hacks. And if that is your opinion then why are you here at SAGG? Because at its core real science is that which is published by CSIRO, NASA, NOAA, and major universities and colleges. You may not like that. And you are certainly welcome to write your own definition of what constitutes science to you. But you will be writing something diametrically opposing the opinions of those with PhD degrees in the sciences (the equivalent of telling physicians they don't understand medicine).
I have clearly expressed in the past, perhaps harshly, the fact that I consider you lazy for never posting links supporting your "facts". Not once could I find you responding with a list of supporting links showing me to be the fool.
I would really prefer that you stay and start using google. If it is REAL SCIENCE then there MUST be links to REAL RESEARCH that supports it.
Take for example your statement about dramatic climate shifts every 300-400 years. I looked both on the net and at the UW library. I couldn't find a single supporting statement. Can you?
as i said a brick wall. yes you do quote things from science, but its always the newstories. most of the time they are written by science writers, and most of the time they are not that political.
on the other hand, you frequently link to groups that are known to be highly political about global warming. you listed several, supposedly as non political science groups.
lets look at nasa. you claim they censor things about global warming, yet you have frequently come up with news stories from their sites that are very heavily politically about global warming. If its being cencored how can you find so many of them. now try to find one that goes against global warming. you see, what they claim is censorship is if a site refuses to publish one single thing that agrees with them no matter how outlandish it is. If you publish a single article that questions global warming then your a puppet of the oil companies. in real science, you accept the possiblity that there is proof against you. you dont argue that the opposite arguement has no right to be discussed. you dont claim censorship if any arguement is used against you.
in real science you dont set off to prove that something is a certain way, you look for proof, but you dont discard evidence that disagrees with your belief. nasa, CSIRO, and many universitys do that with global warming. others such as the university of illinois go against that, but you refuse to listen to their evidence because you claim its completely political. sure it might be, but just because they agree with you does not mean it free of politics. In fact how could it not be since global warming is pure political.
I dont know if there is any evidence of man caused global warming, but ive seen too much evidence to show that there is a major amount of it that is not. According to the global warming political party, that stopped happening when man showed up. As long as they dont accept the evidence, how can they be any thing save political.
at the time i gave you that one link to the hoover site, i also gave you several others. did you discuss any bit of data from any of them. no. you ignored all of them, save the one that tries to have political debate, meaning they have arguements from both sides of the problem.
according to you, since they have arguements that disagree with you, they cant be real, cant have any real information. a political debate about science requires that you use the science and either disprove it, or prove it. The science was the evidence that indicated that the weather was not the same as global warming political party wanted, but since it came from political sources (the ruling parties of china of that time period kept detailed record), the global warming political party says it cant be used.
I dont know if man has done anything to the environment, with the co2, but i can see when people are so closed mind that they refuse to see anything that disagrees with them.
why did you refuse to 7 links just because the 8th was owned by a political party. the answer is that they disagreed with you and you could not find anything to disprove them, so you nitpicked one, as a smokescreen.
why should i give you links when after they are given, you demand that they be given again.
this is not science. this is pure politics.
unfortunately, i am politically challanged. i cant understand why something that is wrong is right just because the majority of one political group states that its politically right.
i cant see something that is scientifically wrong, and accept that its right, just because it politically correct to say it is.
im tired of trying to argue science with someone that is so political, that he cant tell the difference between politically correct and right. since this is purely political and your the politician, this one is to you.
at least you have stopped with the incestant insults. I can leave knowing that you did not run me off with insults. that is what i said i would not do.
i never said that i would not let you run me off when you made it too political. This forum has become too political for me.
