Global Warming is over.

[rwh11385]

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).

yeah, this guy is pretty credible... the guys with PHDs are obviously unqualified, but the talking head that has a book to sell you, well..

It's not credentials that George cares about, it's that the presenter tells him what he wants to hear.

[rwh11385]

I kind of see polluting the environment as a deficit, like our government borrowing money. Eventually, we'll have to pay it back, + interest.

in the long run it's cheaper to deal with the problem than wait until it's too late. How expensive you do think it will be to deal with a 6 meter sea level rise..

Just imagine what it will cost to keep your house cool in the future. Heck, India just had the largest blackout ever in world history.

And food costs. And ski resorts being as 'great' as they were this past year. Plus, how many parents got arrested this summer for leaving babies in cars that were 110 degrees inside?


It's like just because Big Oil pays lobbyists to have Congress support them that people stop thinking for themselves and want to burn up dinosaur juice and ignore the rest of the world's beliefs... so that oil companies can prosper? Are you kidding me? It's not like Oil pays you to parrot Fox News.

[nando]

big oil pays me :p

but even they see the writing on the wall, even if you don't think they do. I wonder how many climate scientists XOM has on staff..

[Fusion]

Meanwhile, farmers are selling crops to govermentally subsidized biofuel producers instead, because ethanolcar.

[gwb72tii]

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).

yeah, this guy is pretty credible... the guys with PHDs are obviously unqualified, but the talking head that has a book to sell you, well..

yup, when losing the argument attack the messenger. and him quoting/interviewing skeptical Phd's apparently isn't good enough.

oh, and i'll argue like rwh agian
rwh, pull your head out of your ass and open your eyes will you?

[rwh11385]

yup, when losing the argument attack the messenger. and him quoting/interviewing skeptical Phd's apparently isn't good enough.

oh, and i'll argue like rwh agian
rwh, pull your head out of your ass and open your eyes will you?

Actually, people who seek to be informed and knowledgeable about subjects at hand do consider the credibility of their sources. Only sheep would repeat someone who may support their biased opinion without evaluating if their context should be trusted or legitimate. Nando's criticism is valid, and your defense of a questionable source is laughable as always.

Maybe if you got a real education, you'd have learned this at some point:

http://libweb.uoregon.edu/guides/findarticles/credibility.html

To evaluate authority:
What is the author's reputation among his/her peers?
Is the author associated with a reputable institution or organization?

To evaluate objectivity:
Does the author state the goals for this publication?
Inform, explain, educate
Advocate
Persuade or dissuade
Sell a product or service [aka all of your economist sources]
Serve as a soapbox

Does the author exhibit a particular bias?
Commitment to a point of view
Acknowledgement of bias
Presentation of facts and arguments for both sides of a controversial issue
Language free of emotion-arousing words and bias

Is the viewpoint of the author's affiliation reflected in the message or content?

Does the information appear to be valid and well-researched?
Reasonable assumptions and conclusions
Arguments and conclusions supported by evidence
Opposing points of view addressed
Opinions not disguised as facts
Authoritative sources cited

To evaluate quality:
Is the information well-organized?
Logical structure
Main points clearly presented
Main ideas unified by overarching idea
Text flows well (not choppy or stilted)
Author's argument is not repetitive
Has the author used good grammar?
Are there spelling or typographical errors?

Is the information complete and accurate?
Facts and results agree with your own knowledge of the subject
Facts and results agree with those of other specialists in the field
Documents sources (a very important indicator of quality)
Describes methodology
Addresses theories and facts that may negate the main thesis
Avoids questionable assumptions

[gwb72tii]

then you didn't read the article rwh
the book is interviews from dissenting scientists, it is not his opinion, it is a compilation of the scientists' opinions

maybe you care to rebutt the points brought up?

[Vedubin01]

then you didn't read the article rwh

You forgot to add "as usual! "

[rwh11385]

then you didn't read the article rwh
the book is interviews from dissenting scientists, it is not his opinion, it is a compilation of the scientists' opinions

maybe you care to rebutt the points brought up?

You posted an article with a person interviewing an author who wrote a book about AGW deniers and was promoting it. That's like taking economic information from someone selling a book about economic advice or selling a mutual fund.

[nando]

yup, when losing the argument attack the messenger. and him quoting/interviewing skeptical Phd's apparently isn't good enough.

oh, and i'll argue like rwh agian
rwh, pull your head out of your ass and open your eyes will you?

there's no argument. I'm not trying to convince you because it doesn't matter - it is what it is, whether you choose to realize it or not is up to you.

[gwb72tii]

glad we see thing the same way about rwh :)

[gwb72tii]

maybe you can help me
i did mechanical/hydraulic engineering to get thru college, so i tend to follow numbers and where they lead. you know, a+b=c
with AGW, it seems to me your side has made up their collective minds that anyone with a dissenting opinion, no matter their qualifications, no matter their backgrounds, cannot be believed. that anything+anything always equals c.

that is what i don't get, so yes, it is what it is

[gwb72tii]

You posted an article with a person interviewing an author who wrote a book about AGW deniers and was promoting it. That's like taking economic information from someone selling a book about economic advice or selling a mutual fund.

so rwh, when you do economic analysis, you gather the raw data yourself right? you don't rely on labor dept info etc, you actually compile the data yourself, right?
your ongoing comments do nothing more than prove you have no clue what i do. being an economist is akin to being an auditor (no offense to you auditors). it would be like watching paint dry.

[herbivor]

maybe you can help me
i did mechanical/hydraulic engineering to get thru college, so i tend to follow numbers and where they lead. you know, a+b=c
with AGW, it seems to me your side has made up their collective minds that anyone with a dissenting opinion, no matter their qualifications, no matter their backgrounds, cannot be believed. that anything+anything always equals c.

that is what i don't get, so yes, it is what it is

I've answered this question before, specifically to you. There are less than a handful of dissenters that have "credentials" worthy enough to consider in a climate debate, really only 2 or 3 people specifically. If you actually research their background, they themselves have been proven wrong time and time again to the point where they offer really nothing of value to the scientific community. These guys are old farts like yourself, set in their ways, and have tenor at their university and are not actively involved in publishing research. So of course the scientific community doesnt really pay attention to these guys, because they have poor tract records and bring nothing of value to the table. They make up the 2% to 3%.
Btw, my car is not for sale, but thanks for the interest George.

[Farbin Kaiber]

What about when Nicolaus Copernicus was a member of the 2-3%? We all know how that ended up.