Who's more convincing

[Michael Hardner]

It's just a popularity contest here.

The problem with the AGW debate is illustrated by this. It shouldn't be about personalities but it always seems to be.

[bloodyminded]

It's just a popularity contest here.

The problem with the AGW debate is illustrated by this. It shouldn't be about personalities but it always seems to be.

It is a problem with political debates generally, I think.

At any rate, "winning" a debate is often totally unrelated to who is right or wrong.

[Michael Hardner]

It is a problem with political debates generally, I think.

At any rate, "winning" a debate is often totally unrelated to who is right or wrong.

And this debate falls into the class of those that never end, they only fade out after awhile.

I for one enjoy being wrong now and again. It means I've learned something new, and sometimes that I have to change my position.

[Gabriel]

Would someone please link me to the specific thread(s) in question? I haven't really been participating in this forum much lately, and I recall seeing a long thread awhile back that seemed interesting regarding climate change. I'm highly ignorant of the global warming issue and assumed that I'd learn more from that thread than a 60-second exchange between "experts" on CBC. At the risk of appearing lazy, please connect me to the thread(s) in question so that I may spend some of my free-time tonight in a meaningful way :-)

[bloodyminded]

Would someone please link me to the specific thread(s) in question? I haven't really been participating in this forum much lately, and I recall seeing a long thread awhile back that seemed interesting regarding climate change. I'm highly ignorant of the global warming issue and assumed that I'd learn more from that thread than a 60-second exchange between "experts" on CBC. At the risk of appearing lazy, please connect me to the thread(s) in question so that I may spend some of my free-time tonight in a meaningful way :-)

I'm with you, brother. I have felt compelled to stay out of this debate because of my unfortunate (and self-inflicted) ignorance.

[Gabriel]

I'm with you, brother. I have felt compelled to stay out of this debate because of my unfortunate (and self-inflicted) ignorance.

Hook me up with the thread(s)! I need to learn a thing or two! Where is this debate?

EDIT - In case you didn't know, this is the thread where the debate took place (I think).

Edited February 24, 2010 by Gabriel

[Michael Hardner]

Hook me up with the thread(s)! I need to learn a thing or two! Where is this debate?

EDIT - In case you didn't know, this is the thread where the debate took place (I think).

Unfortunately for you, there are several threads with many many pages of posts.

[Bonam]

Riverwind is a far superior debater, his only problem is that the facts unfortunately do not support his stance. Wyly's problem is that he has lost all sense of perspective, even going so far as to equate global warming to the Holocaust.

[Alta4ever]

Riverwind is a far superior debater, his only problem is that the facts unfortunately do not support his stance.

It depends if you trust the scientists data, but with what has come out since November is getting harder and harder to trust them.

[Michael Hardner]

It depends if you trust the scientists data, but with what has come out since November is getting harder and harder to trust them.

Keep in mind that there are hundreds of scientists who are working on these things. Also, nothing in the Climategate emails amounts to anything like a smoking gun.

[Bonam]

It depends if you trust the scientists data, but with what has come out since November is getting harder and harder to trust them.

I don't really need to trust the scientist's data. I can derive "global warming" on the back of an envelope in about 5 minutes, which to me is a lot more convincing.

[Michael Hardner]

We do, on the other hand, have a smoking gun that Glenn Beck is being a hypocrite about Global Warming.

Separate thread on Beck: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=15931

[Alta4ever]

We do, on the other hand, have a smoking gun that Glenn Beck is being a hypocrite about Global Warming.

Separate thread on Beck: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=15931

What does glen beck have to do with this thread?

[Michael Hardner]

What does glen beck have to do with this thread?

You said it's getting harder to trust the scientists. Here we have a journalist, or pseudo-journalist who is among the most watched/listened to people in America, who continually rails against Global Warming as his ratings go up.

And he is quoted as saying that he doesn't believe what he says on TV.

If he were an actor or a stand-up comedian then we'd say "who cares" ? But guys like Beck are listened to far more than the scientists.

[bush_cheney2004]

You said it's getting harder to trust the scientists. Here we have a journalist, or pseudo-journalist who is among the most watched/listened to people in America, who continually rails against Global Warming as his ratings go up.

Glen Beck is not a journalist....that's why his ratings are better.

If he were an actor or a stand-up comedian then we'd say "who cares" ? But guys like Beck are listened to far more than the scientists.

President Reagan was an actor too.

Edited February 25, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

Glen Beck is not a journalist....that's why his ratings are better.

What is he ? Does anybody know ?

[Alta4ever]

What is he ? Does anybody know ?

Does it matter in this thread we are talking about debate style and substance of three members of this forum. If you want to discuss Beck create a new thread

[Michael Hardner]

Does it matter in this thread we are talking about debate style and substance of three members of this forum. If you want to discuss Beck create a new thread

Sorry, Alta, but you said this:

It depends if you trust the scientists data, but with what has come out since November is getting harder and harder to trust them.

You brought in the topic of other sources of information, specifically scientist data, and whether it was trustworthy, not me. My counter point is that the well-examined and discussed problems with the science are dwarfed by the problems with dishonest commentators misquoting and blowing everything out of proportion.

People aren't even listening to the scientists, IMO.

[Alta4ever]

Sorry, Alta, but you said this:

You brought in the topic of other sources of information, specifically scientist data, and whether it was trustworthy, not me. My counter point is that the well-examined and discussed problems with the science are dwarfed by the problems with dishonest commentators misquoting and blowing everything out of proportion.

People aren't even listening to the scientists, IMO.

I didn't bring in "other" sources of information I dragged in the very scientists behind global warming theory and their credibility. You deflected away to Glen Beck.

[Michael Hardner]

I didn't bring in "other" sources of information I dragged in the very scientists behind global warming theory and their credibility. You deflected away to Glen Beck.

Right - so why is it ok for you to bring scientists into the discussion and not ok for me to discuss the hog-calling pundits who make light entertainment of the topic of climate change ?

[Alta4ever]

Right - so why is it ok for you to bring scientists into the discussion and not ok for me to discuss the hog-calling pundits who make light entertainment of the topic of climate change ?

pundits and commentators don't matter, linking to Glen Back is no different then linking to Jon Stewart, neither of which are sincere.

[Michael Hardner]

pundits and commentators don't matter, linking to Glen Back is no different then linking to Jon Stewart, neither of which are sincere.

Of course pundits matter. Beck has real influence with people who watch him, and there are a lot who watch him. People aren't rejecting AGW because they're downloading the scientific papers and reading them, they listen to Beck.

So we have Beck, who is 100% lying (unless he was completely and grossly misquoted in USA Today) and has much influence with the voting public.

You don't think this is a problem ?

[Alta4ever]

Of course pundits matter. Beck has real influence with people who watch him, and there are a lot who watch him. People aren't rejecting AGW because they're downloading the scientific papers and reading them, they listen to Beck.

So we have Beck, who is 100% lying (unless he was completely and grossly misquoted in USA Today) and has much influence with the voting public.

You don't think this is a problem ?

Nope both sides have talking heads that misrepresent and distort.

[Michael Hardner]

Nope both sides have talking heads that misrepresent and distort.

Distortion is one thing: Al Gore's film took out a time lag from a graph in order to show correlation, for example. That's misleading, but not anywhere near as cynical as what Beck is doing. And he should have a higher standard to meet than bloggers do - after all he's paid to talk on a "news" network. Here we are talking about the science - whether 20th century proxy data can be mixed with confirmed temperatures, in an open debate, while people are instead listening to charlatans like Beck. They're not listening to Gore anymore.

You wouldn't have a problem if Al Gore said, candidly, "you know, I don't really think there's anything in this Global Warming thing. The numbers don't add up." ?

I sure would, but maybe that's me.

[Smallc]

I used to think that global warming was fake, because it's what everyone around me believed....but then, I thought, who am I to disagree with people who know significantly more about the subject than I do? Global warming most likely is happening, and we are likely contributing. That said, I'm still not sure it's a disaster.