Offline
I'm not trying to be condescending.
It's just that science is a progression.
Once we establish stage one, we move on instead of endlessly debating stage one.
Imagine the fight against polio if we still lent creedence to those who denied the germ theory of disease.
It's time to move on.
Offline
Offline
Here you go, Brady. Sorry I omitted my source. Actually googling his name brings up quite a bit of info:
I'm pretty sure he is not held with much esteem within the scientific community, and even his claim to be a founder of Greenpeace is a bit muddy.
Last edited by Just Fred (3/21/2015 6:51 pm)
Offline
I beat you by a minute Fred! Do I get a prize?
Offline
I would respectfully suggest that what Greenpeace thinks of Mr. Moore, or vice a versa has nothing to do with the theory of climate change.
Offline
I don't care what side he's on, if it's true that Mr. Moore is/has been paid by the industry companies he's promoting, then he has been compromised. It really is as simple as that. How could you then trust that his motives are pure? And goose is right that it really doesn't matter what this one guy thinks. I would prefer to look at the totality.
Last edited by BYOB (3/21/2015 11:02 pm)
Offline
I don't think that it's accurate for a poster to refer to himsself as a "skeptic", when he has referred to the theory as "a hoax", and scientific studies that support the theory as "more lies".
That isn't skepticism. It's denial. And the distinction is important.
Offline
Brady Bunch wrote:
Do you really need to be so condescending? There really is no need for that
All I did was ask Fred for the source of his information that was discrediting the skeptic. I made no comment on what my thoughts were on the subject and my personal position.
Common presents an article, and Fred then responds by posting information trying to discredit Mr. Moore. I don't think it is much to know who is trying to discredit him and what motives they may have. It is good to know what motives Mr. Moore might have, but shouldn't we know what possible motives someone would have for trying to discredit him?
I totally agree with you. One needs to understand where people are coming from and if they present biases in their assessments. That is how you should always approach ALL things.
Offline
tennyson wrote:
Brady Bunch wrote:
Do you really need to be so condescending? There really is no need for that
All I did was ask Fred for the source of his information that was discrediting the skeptic. I made no comment on what my thoughts were on the subject and my personal position.
Common presents an article, and Fred then responds by posting information trying to discredit Mr. Moore. I don't think it is much to know who is trying to discredit him and what motives they may have. It is good to know what motives Mr. Moore might have, but shouldn't we know what possible motives someone would have for trying to discredit him?I totally agree with you. One needs to understand where people are coming from and if they present biases in their assessments. That is how you should always approach ALL things.
One hopes that you are just as curious about understanding where Moore "comes from" as you are in Greenpeace's biases.
Offline
Goose wrote:
tennyson wrote:
Brady Bunch wrote:
Do you really need to be so condescending? There really is no need for that
All I did was ask Fred for the source of his information that was discrediting the skeptic. I made no comment on what my thoughts were on the subject and my personal position.
Common presents an article, and Fred then responds by posting information trying to discredit Mr. Moore. I don't think it is much to know who is trying to discredit him and what motives they may have. It is good to know what motives Mr. Moore might have, but shouldn't we know what possible motives someone would have for trying to discredit him?I totally agree with you. One needs to understand where people are coming from and if they present biases in their assessments. That is how you should always approach ALL things.
One hopes that you are just as curious about understanding where Moore "comes from" as you are in Greenpeace's biases.
It is strange that you think I have issues with Greenpeace from what I wrote. I am just advocating that everyone should take the time to understand the background of the person writing ANY article. I would expect you do the same and if you don't, you should.