by metatron 262 Replies latest jw friends
B A,
I am simply calling Gyles on the carpet based on his immature style, as pointed out numerous times in this thread.
As I noted in my post above, in which you are quoted at length, YOU were the person who first attacked Abbadon with ad hominem insults.
This makes you a liar.
If you think LT is going to fall for that little performance of yours above in which you present yourself as a reasonable person, you do not know him very well either.
This is not a Kingdom Hall, BA.
HS
HS/Abbadon,
You can manufacture whatever imaginary reality you wish.
This is cyberspace.
You can accuse me of just exiting the JWs, although that is a lie.
Gyles can use speech that would get others on JWD banned, which is probably one of his goals.
I do not lie, and have not done so.
I am not 'debating". rather, pointing out what the style of "debate" used by Abaddon amounts to.
BA- Some people can't handle, and won't learn from criticism.
PS- feel free to manufacture more imaginary reality- it shows how much you abhore facts.
BA,
PS- feel free to manufacture more imaginary reality- it shows how much you abhore facts.
What I have presented above, in your own quote, in chronological accurate sequence, are the facts. You attacked Gyles with numerous ad hominem insults before he had even responded to any of your posts. You are quite clearly a liar, it is now a matter of public record beyond the realm of imagination on the part of Abbadon or myself.
That you deny the evidence before your eyes is rather sad, but not suprising given your erratic posting style and flawed memory.
Next time, before you hijack a serious thread with your inane nonesense, make sure that you have something to contribute other than ad hominem attacks, and you may be taken seriously.
Goodbye!
HS
HS,
That you deny the evidence before your eyes
Again, good self-diagnosis!
You do deny the evidence before your eyes- the evidence that you and your cheerleading captain do not debate, but rather use fallacies as pointed out in my earlier post.
Congratulations! The first step is admitting the problem!
BA- Now you can get help.
PS- read up on argumentation theory and logical fallacies
Global Warming- Consquences to businesses:
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
If people could still do this, they wouldn't want prostitutes. Or something like that.
Brothel owners in Bulgaria are blaming global warming for staff shortages.
They claim their best girls are working in ski resorts because a lack of snow has forced tourists to seek other pleasures.
Petra Nestorova, who runs an escort agency in Sofia, said: 'We have hired students, but they are temps and nothing like our elite girls.'
source: http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=39945&in_page_id=2
OBEY GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!
Abaddon:
I am not going to be able to respond to everything you wrote in your first response to one of my earliest posts. Much water has passed under the bridge since then as well I find it hard to believe that you cannot find any of the material I presented to have any validity. Perhaps that is just your debating style. So be it, I guess if it suits the pursuit of truth we can spend the next 100 pages of this thread in an endless, "that's a straw man", "red herring", "lies" and whatever other dismissive catch phrases we can dream up.
Additionally because I use WORD as my editor and how this website and it don't seem to get along I am forced to respond in chunks.....if at all...to what you wrote.
Frank
I enjoyed reading your post that made the above point. As I am not a climatologist and I suspect neither are you,Nope, I'm not. Shutterbug has raised a good point though; I've fairly decent qualifications in science with a broad base. It means I can understand scientific arguments and also I understand the importance of the scientific method.
Not everyone has that. I know it is quite possible for someone with a non-scientiic background to arge intelligently and accurately on this topic. If they are open-minded and have the analytical skill by other means, and make the effort. One thing I am surprised at (and I'm not talking about you at this point) is how the hell do so many people get out of a cult when, from what they say now, they have the critical thinking capacity and analytical skills of a sandwich. We should ALL have that qualification, so lord knows how some got out...
You'll forgive me if I do not take Shutterbugs word for your credentials. In fact let's leave the ego at the door. At best you and I are laymen trying to make sense of the science and we should accord each other of the respect deserved by being laymen and dispense with trying to make ourselves look like big fish in a small pond.
I will get to your understanding of the scientific method in a moment.
If you are what you believe to be, then you are comparable to a bully. If you have qualifications that put you in a different league, then you should think about publishing papers yourself or at least not entering into debate with the 98% of the people here who are not academics and do not pretend to be. Why don't you try going head to head with the likes of Defreitas, Baliunas, Edward Wegman or even Claude Allegre?
On the other hand if you believe what you say about our special circumstance as former JW's then there is no need to act like the people who are still JW's that we talk to from time to time who respond with similar dismissive language that you have used in your lengthy rebuttal. Let us stick to science as you say, and if
Read this scientific article on the relationship of the Sun with earth Climate change in the past 240 years : http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/chapterfiles/The%20Varying%20Sun%20and%20Climate%20Change-Baliunas.pdfMMmmmmm... did you know one of the authors also thinks CFC's don't deplete the ozone layer (a rather remarkable opinion considering the actual chemistry involved was the subject of a Noble Prize)? Even funnier, without ever retracting her opposition to the idea that CFC's don't deplete the Ozone layer "an article by Baliunas and Soon written for the Heartland Institute in 2000 promoted the idea that ozone depletion, rather than CO2 emissions could explain atmospheric warming.
The Heartland Institute are an ideological lead lobby group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute
That's just a bitof background to establish what in other cases might be called credibility. All I did was check up on the authors on Wiki, I am also going to deal with their argument, but the background is as illuminating as the validity of the argument they advance.
Your link is hosted by the Fraser Institute which is ANOTHER ideologically biased lobby group whose world view would make them favour a skeptical view of human-caused climate change http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_institute.
Again, I am going to respond to the article itself, but it is interesting that thus far this skeptical view is conforming to previous descriptors of those typically holding or supporting skeptical views
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas highlights mine
I knew this would end up in just being silly. What difference does Baliunas' opinion on CFC's have to do with the qualified, arguably expert scientific opinion that she and Soon put forward in the article.
She is not alone in her opinion although you can sling mud at these names as well I admit.
Dr. S. Fred Singer, Research Professor at George Mason University and Professor Emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, and a looong list of others : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer
Dr. Hugh Ellsaesser of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory,
Dr. Thomas Gold Astrophysicist and Astronomy Professor of Cornell University, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gold
Dr. Marcel Nicolet, world famous atmospheric scientist,
Dr. Haroun Tazieff, whose Tazieff Resolution calls for a retraction of the Montreal Protocol,
Dr. William Happer of Princeton,
Dr. Frederick Seitz, past head of the National Academy of Science.
What I find curious is that you draw immediately to Wikipedia references about skeptical bias of Global warming inside of the Fraser institute, but you make no reference to the Hillsdale college's impecable almost squeeky clean image where Baliunas' same views and research are likewise hosted and her credentials as a well published astrophysicist are clearly shown.
What is so unpalletable for you with the Fraser intitute anyway? Even Wikipedia does not call into question their work or even their board of governors. The foundation for those not knowledgeable about Canada, was founded by the Weston family who are bakers and grocers first and foremost. They are not big oil or some other industry that could profit from attacking the AGW crowd, in fact they would suffer the most financially if the AGW lobby is right. Your comment is therefore unfair and Ad Hominem!
I would think that a libertarian and conservative charitable organization would be skeptical about global warming hysteria as a given, and naturally they have hosted a peer reviewed paper for the same reasons as the Suzuki foundation would not host the same work, but instead have gathered up their own peer reviewed papers that support their bias.
Even if all of these scientists mentioned, actually received payments directly from oil companies, how would that make their views any more suspect than those scientists who either support through membership or receive financial support from Greenpeace or the Sierra club? Why is the Fraser Institutes Agenda suspect when it hosts a peer reviewed paper but the tree huggers agenda is above suspicion?
Frank75
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~gth/netscape/1998/sfan9801.pdf
Does North America really generate net CO2 into the atmosphere?
metatron
INDEPTH: FRASER INSTITUTE
The Fraser Institute at 30
CBC News Online | October 12, 2004
The Fraser Institute was founded in 1974 by a group of academics and business executives who were concerned that government was getting too big, and that debate on the best way of meeting the economic and social aspirations of Canadians centred on heavy government involvement.
There are those who say the organization's birth was not completely benign; they charge that Michael Walker, an economist from the University of Western Ontario, helped set up the institute after he received financial backing from forestry giant MacMillan-Bloedel, largely to counter B.C.'s NDP government.
To counter charges that it had an agenda, the Fraser Institute said that:
Its research priorities would be determined by its staff, not its funders.
Its research would be based on sound methodology and facts. To ensure this, an Editorial Advisory Board would be established.
No institute staff would engage in political activity, and the institute's conclusions would not be modified to favour any political or economic group.
The Fraser Institute is clear about its focus. Its website and all its major publications state:
The Fraser Institute is an independent Canadian economic and social research and educational organization. It has as its objective the redirection of public attention to the role of competitive markets in providing for the well-being of Canadians. Where markets work, the Institute's interest lies in trying to discover prospects for improvement.
Where markets do not work, its interest lies in finding the reasons. Where competitive markets have been replaced by government control, the interest of the Institute lies in documenting objectively the nature of the improvement or deterioration resulting from government intervention.
The institute – which came to be known as a "right-wing think tank" – didn't attract much attention nationally in the early years, mainly because the prevailing notion in most of the western world was that government had a large role to play in improving the social and economic conditions of citizens.
High interest rates, soaring government deficits and public debt began to change some minds by the late 1970s. In Britain, Margaret Thatcher swept into office with a promise of getting the country's finances in order and the government off people's backs. In the U.S., Ronald Reagan's promises of tax cuts and a return to prosperity through smaller government also led to a big win.
The Fraser Institute identified hot button issues early and got into the debate. Some of the reports it published include:
Caring For Profit: Economic Dimensions of Canada's Health Care Industry (1987)
Privatization: Tactics and Techniques (1988)
Waiting Your Turn: Hospital Waiting Lists in Canada series (1990-present)
Economics and the Environment: A Reconciliation (1990)
The Fraser Institute has called for changes such as a flatter tax system, private involvement in health care, and allowing parents more choice in their children's education (vouchers that can be used to help pay the cost of a private school education).
One issue the Fraser Institute has paid considerable attention to is taxation. It has consistently called for tax relief for corporations and individuals, to bring taxes more in line with those of the United States, Canada's largest trading partner.
For years, the institute's researchers have determined which day of the year you would have to work until to meet all your tax obligations to all levels of government. The Fraser Institute's Tax Freedom Day is generally towards the end of June, although the day varies depending on which province you live in. The institute has been very successful in attracting media attention to the annual announcement.
The Fraser Institute has come under harsh criticism from several groups. Trade unions have lambasted the organization for its recommendations to abolish minimum wage regulations and to end rules that force workers covered by a union agreement to pay union dues.
In 1999, the Fraser Institute raised the ire of scientists and health professionals when it sponsored two conferences on the tobacco industry. They were titled "Junk Science, Junk Policy? Managing Risk and Regulation" and "Should government butt out? The pros and cons of tobacco regulation." The institute was accused of putting its credibility on the line by allying itself with the tobacco industry's efforts to undermine credible scientific research.
The institute has also come out with some surprising recommendations: it declared the war on drugs to be lost and called for the decriminalization of marijuana. Its researchers argued that illegal pot meant a boost for organized crime, as otherwise-law-abiding people went underground to make their purchases.
The Fraser Institute has a history of attracting high-profile people. Michael Walker remains at the head of the organization. Former Ontario premier Mike Harris and Reform party founder Preston Manning are both senior fellows with the institute.
Hello:
I just can't deal with the constant error i get when posting.
Can anyone make a suggestion other than getting a Mac?
Frank75
