Dr. Arthur Robinson (OISM) to Release Names of over 30,000 Scientists Rejecting Global Warming Hypothesis

[HAL 9000 96]

SF was right,

[HAL 9000 96]

I think the red font is a little more important... Gary... enough comedy reading for one night. Enough...

So a few false names slipped in. Do you think the other 29,999 names are fake? Typical. Why even argue with a closed mind like yours?

Not all evangelicals are survivalist nuts like Dr. Robinson.

http://www.creationcare.org/about.php

The Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN) is a non-profit organization that seeks to educate, inspire, and mobilize Christians in their effort to care for God's creation, to be faithful stewards of God's provision, and to advocate for actions and policies that honor God and protect the environment.

EEN's work is grounded in the Bible's teaching on the responsibility of God's people to tend the garden and in a desire to be faithful to Jesus Christ and to follow Him. EEN publishes materials to equip and inspire individuals, families, and churches; and seeks to educate and mobilize people to make a difference in their churches and communities, and to speak out on national and international policies that effect our ability to preach the Gospel, protect life, and care for God's Creation.

I see, the only good evangelicals are the ones you agree with. The ones you don't agree with are nuts. Very nice.

ID Theory is very nutty.

I posted the link at 6:28 and he was discounting it at 6:38. Given that it takes time to follow the link, come back to VJ and post a response he couldn't have done any more than skim it. In other words, he made up him mind before reading it. Not very scientific if you ask me.

Did you expect anything else? He seems to have a comment on everything yet we know absolutely nothing about his background or so-called 'area of expertise'. He is also first to try to discredit anything he disagrees with.

Bitter?

ID is not science and as for bitterness, well, who really cares?

[Heracles 417]

Your holier than thou attitude is the most humiliating thing here. You just don't see how others are looking at your attacks based on someones faith. This subject isn't about religion nor is it germaine to this conversation. But you seem to think that because a person of faith has an opinion that you don't like it's ok to attack them for it.

The forum alone is full of these examples. If these guys cannot agree with you they try to attack your character or the character of a person making a statement rather than actually discussing the issue. It happens in absolutely every single thread. Liberal online debating tactics 101.

[GaryC 7]

I didn't take Science past Sixth Form college - but I do know that scientific research papers are written to established academic formats, precisely to allow for easy reference and quick recall of data. They also have abstracts summarising the entire paper so that other researchers can pull them up and find out what they are about at a glance.

I posted the link at 6:28 and he was discounting it at 6:38. Given that it takes time to follow the link, come back to VJ and post a response he couldn't have done any more than skim it. In other words, he made up him mind before reading it. Not very scientific if you ask me.

Give it a break Gary.

I mean if you want to have a reading contest come on over to Chicago. This would be the third time I invite you over. We can couple the Wisconsin fast plant experiment with a quick learning session in reading a "science" paper, a review no doubt, which you are now making infamous here and available for even the non-scientists to read and laugh at as well... in 20 minutes OMG!

You give it a break. I could bury you under a mountain of evidence and you would still deny it. Your lack of objectivity and obvious bias makes you the one to laugh at.

Well... please... bring us the EVIDENCE... no more OP EDS and opinions of others' opinions...

Does that mean that you could actually understand the point of view you espouse or would this innate ability also come with a dose of laughter? Sorry to bug you with that... its just that, with all due respect, Gary, it shows that you yet have to understand some very simple scientific precepts... including the difference between evidence and what others say is evidence.

I have given you multitudes of real evidence. More evidence than you have given me to support your side. All I get from you is the "consensus" view is the right one. But I guess it does not matter, mother nature will have the final say. 10 years from now when GW does not start back up she will have the last laugh. In the mean time people like you will continue to fool the people with your distorted theories. That is the sad part really. The good news is that as the next few years go by and it gets cooler, fewer people will believe the BS that you put out.

[Marilyn. 340]

the name calling isn't limited to one side though...

who cares if GW is true or not.. we are still messing up the planet by what we are spewing into the air and the trees that are getting knocked down and the landfills that are getting filled with #######...

[sj5 4]

There is no proof! Hence the argument. While the rest of the world is drilling,exploring for oil we stand here arguing about the fcukin enviroment All the while biotchin about the price and whos fault it is. So ridiculous. Last I checked an ice cube melts in the sun.

bolded above

Edited May 20, 2008 by SJ

[HAL 9000 96]

I didn't take Science past Sixth Form college - but I do know that scientific research papers are written to established academic formats, precisely to allow for easy reference and quick recall of data. They also have abstracts summarising the entire paper so that other researchers can pull them up and find out what they are about at a glance.

I posted the link at 6:28 and he was discounting it at 6:38. Given that it takes time to follow the link, come back to VJ and post a response he couldn't have done any more than skim it. In other words, he made up him mind before reading it. Not very scientific if you ask me.

Give it a break Gary.

I mean if you want to have a reading contest come on over to Chicago. This would be the third time I invite you over. We can couple the Wisconsin fast plant experiment with a quick learning session in reading a "science" paper, a review no doubt, which you are now making infamous here and available for even the non-scientists to read and laugh at as well... in 20 minutes OMG!

You give it a break. I could bury you under a mountain of evidence and you would still deny it. Your lack of objectivity and obvious bias makes you the one to laugh at.

Well... please... bring us the EVIDENCE... no more OP EDS and opinions of others' opinions...

Does that mean that you could actually understand the point of view you espouse or would this innate ability also come with a dose of laughter? Sorry to bug you with that... its just that, with all due respect, Gary, it shows that you yet have to understand some very simple scientific precepts... including the difference between evidence and what others say is evidence.

I have given you multitudes of real evidence. More evidence than you have given me to support your side. All I get from you is the "consensus" view is the right one. But I guess it does not matter, mother nature will have the final say. 10 years from now when GW does not start back up she will have the last laugh. In the mean time people like you will continue to fool the people with your distorted theories. That is the sad part really. The good news is that as the next few years go by and it gets cooler, fewer people will believe the BS that you put out.

10 years of ocean heat sinking? Is that what you want to bring now?

We've discussed it before... is that causative or is that an effect? Again, I remind you that the evidence you brought forward to support your argument actually gave plenty of causative power to the very existence of GW. And as for the 10 year effect you so put your stock into... again... its the difference between weather and climate. And yet still you have next to no understanding of the matter... Get with the program brother.

What you have given us here in multitudes is nothing but op eds and others' opinions. Just trying to help you improve the posting skills.

Edited May 20, 2008 by maviwaro

[Heracles 417]

I posted the link at 6:28 and he was discounting it at 6:38. Given that it takes time to follow the link, come back to VJ and post a response he couldn't have done any more than skim it. In other words, he made up him mind before reading it. Not very scientific if you ask me.

Did you expect anything else? He seems to have a comment on everything yet we know absolutely nothing about his background or so-called 'area of expertise'. He is also first to try to discredit anything he disagrees with.

Bitter?

Nah. I have just caught you out for what you really are and the rules you live buy. Your style of discussing. AKA ridiculing..

Number 6 & Co ACME school of forum posting

The rules:

1. Always ridicule and attack anyone who you disagree with. The more personal the better. Don't allow them to explain or clarify their own opinion. ###### em!! If it sounds racist then it bloody well is racist!! Drill it in!!
2. Ask them to provide proof for just about everything they post. Even if they state something as simple as what a beautiful day. Demand proof of it. Naturally when people discuss and debate things in person they always follow on with a prove it comment..
3. Then if they do provide the proof you asked for, rebut it and discredit it. Say it's off topic, or stupid or the author is an idiot.
4. If the conversation starts getting a little tricky or you have nothing else to ridicule, just start bringing up #### from the past or from other threads. Look for weaknesses in their sentence structure or punctuation errors. That'll show them!!
5. Also try to get as many of your buddies as possible to help and gang up on the person. Get everyone to ask questions at once. Then call them out for not answering them all.
6. Then basically repeat the process until the other person is tired of hearing your BS for the 500th time..

PS Never ever actually post proof of your own. And of course if you do post proof. Swear by it as if it's the law of gravity.

Edited May 20, 2008 by Boo-Yah!

[GaryC 7]

the name calling isn't limited to one side though...

who cares if GW is true or not.. we are still messing up the planet by what we are spewing into the air and the trees that are getting knocked down and the landfills that are getting filled with #######...

Yes Marilyn, it's true. We are still messing up the planet. I think that is what really gripes me the most. We are spending so much time on this hoax of GW that we could be spending on real problems. But GW is the latest "fad" science and it will take a lot to turn people away from it and to the real problems the planet faces.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think the red font is a little more important... Gary... enough comedy reading for one night. Enough...

So a few false names slipped in. Do you think the other 29,999 names are fake? Typical. Why even argue with a closed mind like yours?

Not all evangelicals are survivalist nuts like Dr. Robinson.

http://www.creationcare.org/about.php

The Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN) is a non-profit organization that seeks to educate, inspire, and mobilize Christians in their effort to care for God's creation, to be faithful stewards of God's provision, and to advocate for actions and policies that honor God and protect the environment.

EEN's work is grounded in the Bible's teaching on the responsibility of God's people to tend the garden and in a desire to be faithful to Jesus Christ and to follow Him. EEN publishes materials to equip and inspire individuals, families, and churches; and seeks to educate and mobilize people to make a difference in their churches and communities, and to speak out on national and international policies that effect our ability to preach the Gospel, protect life, and care for God's Creation.

I see, the only good evangelicals are the ones you agree with. The ones you don't agree with are nuts. Very nice.

ID Theory is very nutty.

I posted the link at 6:28 and he was discounting it at 6:38. Given that it takes time to follow the link, come back to VJ and post a response he couldn't have done any more than skim it. In other words, he made up him mind before reading it. Not very scientific if you ask me.

Did you expect anything else? He seems to have a comment on everything yet we know absolutely nothing about his background or so-called 'area of expertise'. He is also first to try to discredit anything he disagrees with.

Bitter?

ID is not science and as for bitterness, well, who really cares?

Yup - ID is an entirely political movement. All it relies upon for its foundation are gaps in our understanding about transitionary fossil records - and the least said about their interpretation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics the better.

You should have been on here a couple of years ago - we had a great time discussing ID & Evolutionary theory. Back then there were a lot more fundamentalist religious folks on here - including one guy who cited a "scientist" who claimed to have found mathematical codes in the Bible and (apparently) conducted an archaeological expedition in the Mojave Desert in the hopes of finding alien technology.

I get a lot of those Edgar Cayce type "science" books crossing my desk at work - stuff about Atlantis, Mu Thulan and the lost scientific genius of the Neanderthals. Most of them go in the trash, but a few I keep - a lot of that stuff makes great background material for SF stories.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I posted the link at 6:28 and he was discounting it at 6:38. Given that it takes time to follow the link, come back to VJ and post a response he couldn't have done any more than skim it. In other words, he made up him mind before reading it. Not very scientific if you ask me.

Did you expect anything else? He seems to have a comment on everything yet we know absolutely nothing about his background or so-called 'area of expertise'. He is also first to try to discredit anything he disagrees with.

Bitter?

Nah. I have just caught you out for what you really are and the rules you live buy. Your style of discussing. AKA ridiculing..

Number 6 & Co ACME school of forum posting

The rules:

1. Always ridicule and attack anyone who you disagree with. The more personal the better. Don't allow them to explain or clarify their own opinion. ###### em!! If it sounds racist then it bloody well is racist!! Drill it in!!
2. Ask them to provide proof for just about everything they post. Even if they state something as simple as what a beautiful day. Demand proof of it. Naturally when people discuss and debate things in person they always follow on with a prove it comment..
3. Then if they do provide the proof you asked for, rebut it and discredit it. Say it's off topic, or stupid or the author is an idiot.
4. If the conversation starts getting a little tricky or you have nothing else to ridicule, just start bringing up #### from the past or from other threads. Look for weaknesses in their sentence structure or punctuation errors. That'll show them!!
5. Also try to get as many of your buddies as possible to help and gang up on the person. Get everyone to ask questions at once. Then call them out for not answering them all.
6. Then basically repeat the process until the other person is tired of hearing your BS for the 500th time..

PS Never ever actually post proof of your own. And of course if you do post proof. Swear by it as if it's the law of the land.

Ah I see - that old chestnut.

Must have taken you a while to come up with that multi-point characterisation of me. Answers my question about bitterness with a resounding yes.

[HAL 9000 96]

the name calling isn't limited to one side though...

who cares if GW is true or not.. we are still messing up the planet by what we are spewing into the air and the trees that are getting knocked down and the landfills that are getting filled with #######...

Yes Marilyn, it's true. We are still messing up the planet. I think that is what really gripes me the most. We are spending so much time on this hoax of GW that we could be spending on real problems. But GW is the latest "fad" science and it will take a lot to turn people away from it and to the real problems the planet faces.

Wow... fad science meaning publication of real evidence in real peer-reviewed journals.

And yes... we should also mind the rest of the contamination problem such as the industrial wastes that are dumped into our oceans, killing off sea life, driving down our food supply, and also killing off the phytoplankton that also act as a planetary lung for our benefit. Who said that we couldn't clean up our entire act?

[GaryC 7]

10 years of ocean heat sinking? Is that what you want to bring now?

We've discussed it before... is that causative or is that an effect? Again, I remind you that the evidence you brought forward to support your argument actually gave plenty of causative power to the very existence of GW. And as for the 10 year effect you so put your stock into... again... its the difference between weather and climate. And yet still you have next to no understanding of the matter... Get with the program brother.

What you have given us here in multitudes is nothing but op eds and others' opinions. Just trying to help you improve the posting skills.

No, 10 years of natural global cooling after the last 20 years of natural global warming. The 10 years I speak of was put forth by your side and a hedge because they saw their models were all wrong. It was just an attempt to gain time while natural forces cooled things off. I don't know what the world will do, neither do you. But your the one that thinks he has all the answers. All the evidence says otherwise. So far every model on GW has been wrong.

Wow... fad science meaning publication of real evidence in real peer-reviewed journals.

Only if you happen to agree with it. Anything else is psuedoscience to you.

[HAL 9000 96]

10 years of ocean heat sinking? Is that what you want to bring now?

We've discussed it before... is that causative or is that an effect? Again, I remind you that the evidence you brought forward to support your argument actually gave plenty of causative power to the very existence of GW. And as for the 10 year effect you so put your stock into... again... its the difference between weather and climate. And yet still you have next to no understanding of the matter... Get with the program brother.

What you have given us here in multitudes is nothing but op eds and others' opinions. Just trying to help you improve the posting skills.

No, 10 years of natural global cooling after the last 20 years of natural global warming. The 10 years I speak of was put forth by your side and a hedge because they saw their models were all wrong. It was just an attempt to gain time while natural forces cooled things off. I don't know what the world will do, neither do you. But your the one that thinks he has all the answers. All the evidence says otherwise. So far every model on GW has been wrong.

Natural cycle with the additional contribution of artificial sources. As the papers so state, not me. Get over it. And claiming correct or wrong based on your limited interpretation is not exactly what I would call kosher scientific judgment. I think I've already stated that models as well as other scientific aspects of research are revised as new, more encompassing evidence is collected.

My conclusion is that you still can't grasp some of the more simple aspects of the entire phenomenon of climate vs weather cycles/etc. Otherwise you wouldn't be continually confusing yourself over what you believe and what is actually written.

10 years of ocean heat sinking? Is that what you want to bring now?

We've discussed it before... is that causative or is that an effect? Again, I remind you that the evidence you brought forward to support your argument actually gave plenty of causative power to the very existence of GW. And as for the 10 year effect you so put your stock into... again... its the difference between weather and climate. And yet still you have next to no understanding of the matter... Get with the program brother.

What you have given us here in multitudes is nothing but op eds and others' opinions. Just trying to help you improve the posting skills.

No, 10 years of natural global cooling after the last 20 years of natural global warming. The 10 years I speak of was put forth by your side and a hedge because they saw their models were all wrong. It was just an attempt to gain time while natural forces cooled things off. I don't know what the world will do, neither do you. But your the one that thinks he has all the answers. All the evidence says otherwise. So far every model on GW has been wrong.

Wow... fad science meaning publication of real evidence in real peer-reviewed journals.

Only if you happen to agree with it. Anything else is psuedoscience to you.

Please define pseudoscience as it pertains to your definition of science.

I don't think you understand that all that much...

[Niels Bohr 72]

Hmm...

I didn't bring this up. Many publications have falsified data. As in the case of Dr. Woo Suk Hwang, a stem cell researcher, who is the famous korea scientist making claims that is impossible to replicate in experiments.

There are a number of scientists who produce false information to get grants, fame, etc...We just have to be careful when reading articles in science journals. Some are legit, and some are not. We just need to be careful when reading from papers submitted by popular researchers. It's a very competitive world out there.

Edited May 20, 2008 by consolemaster