Latest Breaking News

joshcryer

(62,536 posts)

35. It is actually quite similar to the 1990s early 2000s creationists vs evolution debates.

Tue Feb 21, 2012, 11:17 PM

Feb 2012

If you do not recall those just go to Talk Origins that covered the lasting effect of that debacle: http://www.talkorigins.org/

Just because there is vitriol does not mean that neither side can be trusted. One side is based on reason, logic, and data.

The other side has either for-profit motives or ideological motives that reject reason, logic, and data.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

48 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

[Climate scientist] Peter Gleick Admits to Deception in Obtaining Heartland Climate Files [View all] salvorhardin Feb 2012 OP

so the right can steal and misinterpret climate scientist emails, but when we leak villager Feb 2012 #1

Has Heartland admitted any such theft in stealing the emails of hundreds of climate scientists? DCKit Feb 2012 #2

There's no story here - not really. OneAngryDemocrat Feb 2012 #3

They may ignore the insignificance of his deception, and just call him dishonest. tclambert Feb 2012 #17

O Horrors! Warren Stupidity Feb 2012 #4

The article doesn't give enough information to determine whether JDPriestly Feb 2012 #5

Record highs are outnumbering record lows 3-1 caseymoz Feb 2012 #10

I'm not questioning that. I am questioning whether there JDPriestly Feb 2012 #40

Obtaining information fraudulently would be against the law. caseymoz Feb 2012 #42

he claimed to be a board member reorg Feb 2012 #46

I also disagree that the allegedly fake document reads like JDPriestly Feb 2012 #48

"I'm shocked, shocked to find gambling going on in this establishment! padruig Feb 2012 #6

What was the personal grudge Gleick had against Heartland? nt wtmusic Feb 2012 #7

Many on BOTH sides of the global warming debate are so flawed, the motives and ethics of BOTH sides stockholmer Feb 2012 #8

Post removed Post removed Feb 2012 #11

spannered -- try traveling somewhere mate, perhaps to the UK stockholmer Feb 2012 #21

Why? To be educated in flash-in-the-pan slang? caseymoz Feb 2012 #27

Uhm... kenfrequed Feb 2012 #29

nice geographical/cultural reductionism stockholmer Feb 2012 #30

Back to the subject . . . caseymoz Feb 2012 #33

That's neither odd nor suspicious. caseymoz Feb 2012 #32

True kenfrequed Feb 2012 #43

Global Warming: 1,000 climate scientists for, 1 oil geologist against = "unsettled" LastLiberal in PalmSprings Feb 2012 #13

+infinity kenfrequed Feb 2012 #20

"deniers" - lololol, spoken like a true ayatollah, colour me undecided, I know that is 'heretical' stockholmer Feb 2012 #24

I imagine that, when lacking a substantive point, we often resort to melodrama. LanternWaste Feb 2012 #25

Thank you. kenfrequed Feb 2012 #44

at the end of the day, it is not settled, sorry, but I wont play the 'pick on side or another' game stockholmer Feb 2012 #23

I feel the same way about the theory of gravity... LanternWaste Feb 2012 #26

Definitely! kenfrequed Feb 2012 #28

It is actually quite similar to the 1990s early 2000s creationists vs evolution debates. joshcryer Feb 2012 #35

no it is fucking settled science. The only reasonable discussions are about Warren Stupidity Feb 2012 #37

The science is settled. There is no controversy. Global Climate Change is real. Ian David Feb 2012 #18

False equivalency BS kenfrequed Feb 2012 #19

"the science is unsettled"? Bollocks. truebrit71 Feb 2012 #22

LOL joshcryer Feb 2012 #34

The only ones for whom this science is unsettled are extreme right-wingers Hugabear Feb 2012 #45

This doesn't make climate change data or conclusions untrue CreekDog Feb 2012 #9

Remember when climate scientists emails were hacked? caseymoz Feb 2012 #12

I don't have a problem with it, and I think he was a fool to apologize saras Feb 2012 #14

The high cost of exposing the deniers for what they are PuffedMica Feb 2012 #15

The oil industry/Heartland willingly released the information to him Kolesar Feb 2012 #16

A poster hits nail on the head (for radical RW in general) BadgerKid Feb 2012 #31

What's sad about this, imo, is that he didn't release it to Wikileaks... joshcryer Feb 2012 #36

I do not care how the documents were obtained, only that they were obtained. (nt) w4rma Feb 2012 #38

Do you care about them being fake? salvorhardin Feb 2012 #39

what are you talking about? n/t reorg Feb 2012 #47

concern is the answer we were looking for tiny elvis Feb 2012 #41