Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

    Originally posted by Gyron View Post
    The one thing that could have an effect on that geez is, I think....as the polar ice caps melt, that puts more water into the ocean versus it just balancing out....

    But thats the only theory I could some up with that may explain that.
    I've always wondered how much of the ice, that is going to supposedly melt, is already under water and how much volume would be offset because of the fact that water takes up more room when frozen...
    Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
    I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

    Comment


    • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

      A documentary has been made that argues counterpoints to the current 'global warming' theory(ies).

      ---

      UK News
      'Global Warming Is Lies' Claims Documentary



      Accepted theories about man causing global warming are "lies" claims a controversial new TV documentary.

      ?The Great Global Warming Swindle? - backed by eminent scientists - is set to rock the accepted consensus that climate change is being driven by humans.

      The programme, to be screened on Channel 4 on Thursday March 8, will see a series of respected scientists attack the "propaganda" that they claim is killing the world?s poor.

      Even the co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, is shown, claiming African countries should be encouraged to burn more CO2.

      Nobody in the documentary defends the greenhouse effect theory, as it claims that climate change is natural, has been occurring for years, and ice falling from glaciers is just the spring break-up and as normal as leaves falling in autumn.

      A source at Channel 4 said: "It is essentially a polemic and we are expecting it to cause trouble, but this is the controversial programming that Channel 4 is renowned for."

      Controversial director Martin Durkin said: "You can see the problems with the science of global warming, but people just don?t believe you ? it?s taken ten years to get this commissioned.

      "I think it will go down in history as the first chapter in a new era of the relationship between scientists and society. Legitimate scientists ? people with qualifications ? are the bad guys.

      "It is a big story that is going to cause controversy.

      "It?s very rare that a film changes history, but I think this is a turning point and in five years the idea that the greenhouse effect is the main reason behind global warming will be seen as total bollocks.

      "Al Gore might have won an Oscar for ?An Inconvenient Truth?, but the film is very misleading and he has got the relationship between CO2 and climate change the wrong way round."

      One major piece of evidence of CO2 causing global warming are ice core samples from Antarctica, which show that for hundreds of years, global warming has been accompanied by higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

      In ?The Great Global Warming Swindle? Al Gore is shown claiming this proves the theory, but palaeontologist Professor Ian Clark claims in the documentary that it actually shows the opposite.

      He has evidence showing that warmer spells in the Earth?s history actually came an average of 800 years before the rise in CO2 levels.

      Prof Clark believes increased levels of CO2 are because the Earth is heating up and not the cause. He says most CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the oceans, which dissolve the gas.

      When the temperature increases, more gas is released into the atmosphere and when global temperatures cool, more CO2 is taken in. Because of the immense size of the oceans, he said they take time to catch up with climate trends, and this ?memory effect? is responsible for the lag.

      Scientists in the programme also raise another discrepancy with the official line, showing that most of the recent global warming occurred before 1940, when global temperatures then fell for four decades.

      It was only in the late 1970s that the current trend of rising temperatures began.

      This, claim the sceptics, is a flaw in the CO2 theory, because the post-war economic boom produced more CO2 and should, according to the consensus, have meant a rise in global temperatures.

      The programme claims there appears to be a consensus across science that CO2 is responsible for global warming, but Professor Paul Reiter is shown to disagree.

      He said the influential United Nations report on Climate change, that claimed humans were responsible, was a sham.

      It claimed to be the opinion of 2,500 leading scientists, but Prof Reiter said it included names of scientists who disagreed with the findings and resigned from the UN?s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and said the report was finalised by government appointees.

      The CO2 theory is further undermined by claims that billions of pounds is being provided by governments to fund greenhouse effect research, so thousands of scientists know their job depends on the theory continuing to be seen as fact.

      The programme claims efforts to reduce CO2 are killing Africans, who have to burn fires inside their home, causing cancer and lung damage, because their governments are being encouraged to use wind and solar panels that are not capable of supplying the continent with electricity, instead of coal and oil-burning power stations that could.

      Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore is shown saying: "Environmentalists have romanticised peasant life, but this is anti-human.

      "They are saying the world?s poorest people should have the world?s most expensive form of form of energy ? really saying they can?t have electricity."

      Gary Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, is featured in the programme, and has just released a book claiming that clouds are the real reason behind climate change.

      ?The Chilling Stars? was written with Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark who published a scientific paper, claiming cosmic rays cause clouds to form, reducing the global temperature. The theory is shown in the programme.

      Mr Calder said: "Henrik Svensmark saw that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars - when there are more cosmic rays, there are more clouds.

      "However, solar winds bat away many of the cosmic rays and the sun is currently in its most active phase, which would be an explanation for global warming.

      "I am a science journalist and in my career I have been told by eminent scientists that black holes do not exist and it is impossible that continents move, but in science the experts are usually wrong.

      "For me this is a cracking science story ? I don?t come from any political position and I?m certainly not funded by the multinationals, although my bank manager would like me to be.

      "I talk to scientists and come up with one story, and Al Gore talks to another set of scientists and comes up with a different story.

      "So knowing which scientists to talk to is part of the skill. Some, who appear to be disinterested, are themselves getting billions of dollars of research money from the government.

      "The few millions of dollars of research money from multinationals can?t compare to government funding, so you find the American scientific establishment is all for man-made global warming.

      "We have the same situation in Britain The government?s chief scientific advisor Sir David King is supposed to be the representative of all that is good in British science, so it is disturbing he and the government are ignoring a raft of evidence against the greenhouse effect being the main driver against climate change."

      The programme shows how the global warming research drive began when Margaret Thatcher gave money to scientists to ?prove? burning coal and oil was harmful, as part of her drive for nuclear power.

      Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London , who also features in the film warned the issue was too complex to be down to one single factor, whether CO2 or clouds.

      He said: "The greenhouse effect theory worried me from the start because you can?t say that just one factor can have this effect.

      "The system is too complex to say exactly what the effect of cutting back on CO2 production would be, or indeed of continuing to produce CO2.

      "It?s ridiculous to see politicians arguing over whether they will allow the global temperature to rise by 2C or 3C."

      Mr Stott said the film could mark the point where scientists advocating the greenhouse effect theory, began to lose the argument.

      He continued: "It is a brave programme at the moment to give excluded voices their say, and maybe it is just the beginning.

      "At the moment, there is almost a McCarthyism movement in science where the greenhouse effect is like a puritanical religion and this is dangerous."

      In the programme Nigel Calder says: "The greenhouse effect is seen as a religion and if you don?t agree, you are a heretic.

      He added: "However, I think this programme will help further debate and scientists not directly involved in global warming studies may begin to study what is being said, become more open-minded and more questioning, but this will happen slowly."

      http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?s...ms_documentary
      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

      ------

      "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

      -John Wooden

      Comment


      • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

        From one of my favorite blogs, Freakonomics:

        http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.co...icane-experts/
        This space for rent.

        Comment


        • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

          Here's one. Jamaica might not exist after this. I wish the global warming deniers would quit listening to the ExxonMobile-funded whores:

          Comment


          • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

            Originally posted by McClintic Sphere View Post
            Here's one. Jamaica might not exist after this. I wish the global warming deniers would quit listening to the ExxonMobile-funded whores:

            1 hurricane proves global warming and that, not only does it exist, but it's man-made.

            Meanwhile, a lack of scores of hurricanes, even tho they were predicted as a symptom of global warming, proved nothing...



            -Bball
            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

            ------

            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

            -John Wooden

            Comment


            • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

              Originally posted by McClintic Sphere View Post
              Here's one. Jamaica might not exist after this. I wish the global warming deniers would quit listening to the ExxonMobile-funded whores:

              I'd like to congratulate you on exhibiting your complete ignorance of this subject by using a single weather event to make an argument regarding such a complex issue.

              There are Phoenician inscriptions from the 10th century BC depicting massive storms at sea. Must have been from Human-induced global warming - too many transatlantic airline flights, poor emissions controls on the 10th century BC automobiles and an overreliance on coal-fired power plants back then.

              Too bad the ExxonMobile baseball cap had eroded from their statues of The God of Storms.
              The poster formerly known as Rimfire

              Comment


              • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                1 hurricane is not going to prove anything, but jesus that looks massive and clearly defined. Hope it's not as bad as it looks.

                And this is one long thread to read with big words I don't understand and more quotes and references than any thread I have ever read.

                My question is...what happened to Gamble and Kestas?

                Comment


                • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                  Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                  I'd like to congratulate you on exhibiting your complete ignorance of this subject by using a single weather event to make an argument regarding such a complex issue.

                  There are Phoenician inscriptions from the 10th century BC depicting massive storms at sea. Must have been from Human-induced global warming - too many transatlantic airline flights, poor emissions controls on the 10th century BC automobiles and an overreliance on coal-fired power plants back then.

                  Too bad the ExxonMobile baseball cap had eroded from their statues of The God of Storms.

                  This from the same member who attributed good work to the feds post-Katrina, stated that the Israelis would clean up on Hezbollah in Lebanon, that the Democrats had no chance of winning the Senate and after they did win, that they would be good for Bush, prior to almost the entire administration now resigning. That is a consistent record of ignorance that continues in this subject. The wingnuts never change. They stick their heads in the sand on every issue to the detriment of our country and our planet.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                    Originally posted by McClintic Sphere View Post
                    This from the same member who attributed good work to the feds post-Katrina, stated that the Israelis would clean up on Hezbollah in Lebanon, that the Democrats had no chance of winning the Senate and after they did win, that they would be good for Bush, prior to almost the entire administration now resigning. That is a consistent record of ignorance that continues in this subject. The wingnuts never change. They stick their heads in the sand on every issue to the detriment of our country and our planet.
                    You are a liar.

                    Either that or you've given no more thought to the accuracy of the above post than you do to all your others.

                    You should stick to being a link-parrot. You at least seem able to post a link and say, "See - this article is doing my thinking for me because I'm intellectually incapable of forming an independent thought on my own."
                    The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                    Comment


                    • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                      Everyone needs to leave the insults someplace else. I don't want to close a thread over it, but to get to this point is crossing a line on PD. Thanks.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                        Isn't this thing still a category 4 hurricane? Hurricanes happen, this one just happens to be on a direct course for Jamaica. I'm not sure how any of this makes it a case for "global warming".... "climate change" or whatever the preferred catch-phrase is these days.

                        If it was a 5 and strengthening off the charts, maybe it would get my attention. If these things were forming out of season, once a week, etc then maybe it gets my attention (to use it as proof of global warming). But otherwise, it smacks of opportunism for the global warming crowd and a chance to make hay over a normal weather occurence.

                        -Bball
                        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                        ------

                        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                        -John Wooden

                        Comment


                        • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                          Originally posted by Mal View Post
                          Everyone needs to leave the insults someplace else. I don't want to close a thread over it, but to get to this point is crossing a line on PD. Thanks.
                          I didn't post an insult (OK, maybe the last paragraph fits that). However MS made a post attributing stances on various issues to me which I've never stated - and have never held.

                          Out of those statements the only one with a factual basis is that I didn't think the Dems would win the Senate. The rest are untrue - either he lied or he doesn't care about the validity of his posts. Don't expect me not to respond when someone posts lies about me.
                          Last edited by DisplacedKnick; 08-19-2007, 08:20 PM. Reason: first was a bit too harsh
                          The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                          Comment


                          • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                            Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                            I didn't post an insult (OK, maybe the last paragraph fits that). However MS made a post attributing stances on various issues to me which I've never stated - and have never held.

                            Out of those statements the only one with a factual basis is that I didn't think the Dems would win the Senate. The rest are untrue - either he lied or he doesn't care about the validity of his posts. Don't expect me not to respond when someone posts lies about me.
                            I understand, but as you say your last paragraph was going into territory that is going to get an admin out from under his bridge, so here I am and nothing more needs to be said.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                              I think debate on a issue is an important thing. I am turned off by the notion that any who question the theories are pro-oil companies. I think there is a lot of truth in the notion that there is an orthodoxy responding to any critic with, "How dare you question science."

                              Most agree that climate change is occurring and that we can be cleaner. However, what is being questioned the numbers used and what the course of action should be.

                              It is important because 1) if it is bad science any policy based on it will be bad policy 2) if it is proven to be incorrect, it will hurt enviromentalism as a whole.

                              MS, I hesitate to post this but, your characterization of Dk was unfair. It was a bit Chaney-like misrepresenting his positions to discredit him on an unrelated topic. It might be the politics board but we don't have to act like politicans. I value your opinions and would rather hear them than your going after a poster.
                              "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                              "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                              Comment


                              • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                                Originally posted by Arcadian View Post
                                I think debate on a issue is an important thing. I am turned off by the notion that any who question the theories are pro-oil companies. I think there is a lot of truth in the notion that there is an orthodoxy responding to any critic with, "How dare you question science."

                                Most agree that climate change is occurring and that we can be cleaner. However, what is being questioned the numbers used and what the course of action should be.

                                It is important because 1) if it is bad science any policy based on it will be bad policy 2) if it is proven to be incorrect, it will hurt enviromentalism as a whole.

                                MS, I hesitate to post this but, your characterization of Dk was unfair. It was a bit Chaney-like misrepresenting his positions to discredit him on an unrelated topic. It might be the politics board but we don't have to act like politicans. I value your opinions and would rather hear them than your going after a poster.
                                Well, thanks for bringing some thoughtful balance to this Arc-man, but it was only after he stated that I was ignorant that I felt compelled to bring out his track record, which has been consistently wrong on important issues.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X