Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Actually, the more common response to the skeptics are well-reasoned articles (like the ones I posted above that you conveniently ignored)...
|
There can be a difference between what I ignore and what I don't write a response to.
Again this comment further illustrates my point - your response here is directed to me rather than the point in question. The comment serves no value. If you want to know if I have an opinion on something that I have not responded to, why not ask? Perhaps we know why. A common strategy in political debate is to not "ask" in an attempt to discredit an individual. I think this technique is underhanded when employed knowingly. I think you are pretty savvy and know exactly how you want to frame your arguments.
Quote:
|
that clearly demonstrate the flaws in the skeptics studies and/or how the studies cited by skeptics are often misrepresented (again, as in the case of the first study in Morano's blog).
|
Again my comment is regarding your response and not your point.
The positions of those who state that humans are responsible for current global warming often state their positions are misrepresented when those positions are questioned or challenged. This technique is used in such a way that no single point can be discussed in detail because any point discussed out of the context of the "whole" will always be a "misrepresented" point.
Quote:
|
And then you always have Inhofe comparing people who believe in global warming to the Third Reich and the "big lie" or comparing An Inconvenient Truth to Mein Kampf...or holding hearings where his "expert" witness is a novelist and the "science" in his fictional diatribe.
|
We also have people who believe Elvis is still alive. Certainly that is not relevant nor are people who make other outlandish claims. But again, lumping together serious and thoughtful people with those who are not is another technique used to manipulate the debate rather than truly debate the merits of a point.
I have concluded that that Gore, Hansen and many others are so emotionally involved with their premise about global warming that real debate with these people is not possible.