Bigfatbillsfan Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 (edited) A warming trend, or a man-made warming trend? Based on putting thermometers on the tops of buildings near roofing tar and in parking lots on asphalt? Why was that done? Was there any effort to control for that? What possible motivation besides cooking the data, literally, was there for that? But even if we assume the data was collected properly, the issue here the extension of a possible trend, into an obvious fabrication, into immediate political action. If I am a "denier", WTF am I denying? It's kinda hard to pin down when what you are claiming keeps changing, isn't it? I'll make it easy for you: I am denying that you and every other "warmist" have any credibility on this issue, and will continue, rightly, denying it until you prove otherwise. You have seen fit to cash in your benefit of the doubt and/or "just in case" status. That was a choice, and it has consequences. Thanks for the narrative from 2005 there buddy, is Pope John Paul still dead? I am sorry, but it's 2012 and here's the news: a large and growing number of scientists have now either reversed their position on man-made global warming or are now actively debunking it. In fact, there never was a "consensus", and that never mattered anyway, as the 16 climate scientists in the WSJ op ed accurately point out: science is not a democratic activity. Or, as DC_Tom demonstrates on a daily basis, it's also not a popularity contest. That you think you need to talk in terms of "all the world's climatologists" was the very thing that first set off my BS radar in 2005. If you are right, you don't need to try and peer pressure me into believing you. Do you think I give even the tiniest crap about what anybody else thinks when I know I am right? Nope. Why would I? See, those of us with a lot of experience being right in contentious situations, and winning because it's literally our job? We know you're full of ****. We don't need the details, we can play it blind. When we're right, all we have to do is state our case, sit back, smile and wait. Soon the other guy will trip into proving themselves wrong. It's absolutely about confidence, but it also requires actually being right, or, mostly right anyway. When you have to resort to "everybody's doing it"? We know-->you don't have it. You'll stay away, because you have no chance proving otherwise. Hey, you're the one talking in terms of "all the world's climatologists", and then telling me that isn't a text book case for potential groupthink...at the same time. Nice. Remember that part about tripping and proving themselves wrong? Oh, don't misinterpret, it's absolutely satire.... ....it's just that, you can't get the joke. Wait.....can't or won't? Hmmmm What is a timestamp? Do you know? EDIT: Believing you are clever, when in fact you are an unmitigated moron. Isn't that how we ended up with Obamacare? Didn't the Democrats "cleverly" pass it by "cleverly" circumventing Scott Brown's election? Then "cleverly" give all their constituencies and donors waivers, but then get caught? Weren't they being "clever" when they convinced themselves that it would become popular, once we all saw just how "clever" it was? See, if we merely replace "clever" with "stupid", we get the accurate picture of exactly how the Democrats got here. Ipso facto the belief that they are clever, when in fact they are idiots. I know it's no use in arguing with this kind of stupidity, but it's just so fun to keep watching you make a fool out of yourself. I know you have a hard time with reading comprehension but I said "almost" all of the worlds climatologists not "all". Changing that one word changes the entire meaning of the statement. Now we're adding Obamacare and Scott Brown into the picture? And I'm still trying to figure out how Occam's razor proves you right when your "theory" keeps getting more and more complex. And no, I don't think this is a case of groupthink. There isn't even a potential for it in this political climate. Edited February 26, 2012 by Bigfatbillsfan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 29, 2012 Author Share Posted February 29, 2012 (edited) I know it's no use in arguing with this kind of stupidity, but it's just so fun to keep watching you make a fool out of yourself. I know you have a hard time with reading comprehension but I said "almost" all of the worlds climatologists not "all". Changing that one word changes the entire meaning of the statement. Now we're adding Obamacare and Scott Brown into the picture? And I'm still trying to figure out how Occam's razor proves you right when your "theory" keeps getting more and more complex. And no, I don't think this is a case of groupthink. There isn't even a potential for it in this political climate. No, again, there's no argument here. You've already lost. There used to be an argument, but "it's all over now!" (love it when I can throw in a Stones quote) The only thing I am doing in this thread, is mocking the FUTILITY which is crying out to be mocked. You are new here so you aren't aware that FUTILITY is a constant theme for me. As in, the dishonorable tactics the left chooses to employ ALWAYS come back to squish them in the end, worse than if they had done nothing, or been straightforward. This is hysterical for any objective observer. You don't seem to get that, and despite Tom's annoyances and distractions, I feel I have succeeded in demonstrating, again, just how phony the self-righteous left is. I mean, a guy who is in charge, not just speaks, but is in charge of overseeing scientific ETHICS, lying, stealing and cheating? F'ing hysterical. Edit: and it's not schadenfreude...because they are intentionally doing it to themselves! Clearly you don't understand the concept of groupthink. IF groupthink was defined as everybodythink, then your political climate point would be valid. But, it's not, so your point is, by definition, ludicrous. Was everybody in charge of the Bay of Pigs? No, a group of people were. Just like everybody wasn't in charge of Global Warming. The definition of groupthink depends upon a GROUP of people, not all people. When a group of people fully commit themselves to and idea, and purposely attack all views and claims that come from OUTSIDE of the group, because they have chosen to lose their objectivity....that is when we see groupthink in action. It doesn't wash if everybody is in the group and their is no "outside" views. Get it? Now, short of me having to lmgtfy.com groupthink for you, it's far past time that you actually learned the concept properly for yourself. Edited February 29, 2012 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 (edited) No, again, there's no argument here. You've already lost. There used to be an argument, but "it's all over now!" (love it when I can throw in a Stones quote) The only thing I am doing in this thread, is mocking the FUTILITY which is crying out to be mocked. You are new here so you aren't aware that FUTILITY is a constant theme for me. As in, the dishonorable tactics the left chooses to employ ALWAYS come back to squish them in the end, worse than if they had done nothing, or been straightforward. This is hysterical for any objective observer. You don't seem to get that, and despite Tom's annoyances and distractions, I feel I have succeeded in demonstrating, again, just how phony the self-righteous left is. I mean, a guy who is in charge, not just speaks, but is in charge of overseeing scientific ETHICS, lying, stealing and cheating? F'ing hysterical. Edit: and it's not schadenfreude...because they are intentionally doing it to themselves! Clearly you don't understand the concept of groupthink. IF groupthink was defined as everybodythink, then your political climate point would be valid. But, it's not, so your point is, by definition, ludicrous. Was everybody in charge of the Bay of Pigs? No, a group of people were. Just like everybody wasn't in charge of Global Warming. The definition of groupthink depends upon a GROUP of people, not all people. When a group of people fully commit themselves to and idea, and purposely attack all views and claims that come from OUTSIDE of the group, because they have chosen to lose their objectivity....that is when we see groupthink in action. It doesn't wash if everybody is in the group and their is no "outside" views. Get it? Now, short of me having to lmgtfy.com groupthink for you, it's far past time that you actually learned the concept properly for yourself. I understand groupthink phenomenon very well. Bias is one of the symptoms we look for when looking for potential groupthink but it is not groupthink. Not to mention I have no idea how in hell you think there is any parallel between the Bay of Pigs and global warning. Edited March 1, 2012 by Bigfatbillsfan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 I understand groupthink phenomenon very well. Bias is one of the symptoms we look for when looking for potential groupthink but it is not groupthink. Not to mention I have no idea how in hell you think there is any parallel between the Bay of Pigs and global warning. The Bay of Pigs was caused by a cabal of leftists scientists trying to push their socialist agenda on the world. Or something... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 The Bay of Pigs was caused by a cabal of leftists scientists trying to push their socialist agenda on the world. Or something... Well Duh... Occam's Razor should tell you that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Will you jerks put your partisan bullstojan aside for one second? Global warming isn't just a pissing contest anymore about who's science is more accurate. This stuff is serious now. http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/06/study-an-end-to-canadas-outdoor-pastime/?hpt=hp_t3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Will you jerks put your partisan bullstojan aside for one second? Global warming isn't just a pissing contest anymore about who's science is more accurate. This stuff is serious now. http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/06/study-an-end-to-canadas-outdoor-pastime/?hpt=hp_t3 Makes me wish soccer was played on ice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted March 9, 2012 Author Share Posted March 9, 2012 I understand groupthink phenomenon very well. Bias is one of the symptoms we look for when looking for potential groupthink but it is not groupthink. Not to mention I have no idea how in hell you think there is any parallel between the Bay of Pigs and global warning. Yeah, getting caught cooking the numbers, a guy stealing and lying, and the general non-scientific approach to all of this....yeah, there's no indication of bias there at all. Are you really this obtuse? If you can't see the blatant bias here, then you are part of the problem, certainly not part of the solution. Forget the analogies, the best way to say this is: if there is in fact a problem, we cannot count on people who think like you to solve it. We can't trust that you will be able to put aside the political opportunism/careerism and simply pursue the truth, wherever it takes you. Clearly, as I have documented exhaustively on this board, you've blown whatever chance you have to ask us to merely trust you. It's over. And, now, politically? Global Warming is rapidly becoming a liability for Obama. He knows it, but his continued silly actions regarding the Canadian pipeline show beyond all doubt that he is still hoping to turn this thing around. He will fail. Again, he has catastrophically misread the American people's opinion, like he has so many times in the past. The only reasonable conclusion for why this is happening, again? Obama's ideology drives all chance for pragmatism and being solution-driven right out of the room....just like 2 of his well-regarded chiefs of staff. So, now, instead of being the political weapon it was intended to be, it's yet another albatross. Or chicken, coming home to roost in November. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 It's over. And, now, politically? Global Warming is rapidly becoming a liability for Obama. He knows it, but his continued silly actions regarding the Canadian pipeline show beyond all doubt that he is still hoping to turn this thing around. He will fail. Again, he has catastrophically misread the American people's opinion, like he has so many times in the past. The only reasonable conclusion for why this is happening, again? Obama's ideology drives all chance for pragmatism and being solution-driven right out of the room....just like 2 of his well-regarded chiefs of staff. So, now, instead of being the political weapon it was intended to be, it's yet another albatross. Or chicken, coming home to roost in November. Remember just a few weeks ago that the President's spokesman, spun that Obama really supported the idea of a pipeline, but that he was "forced" to drop it because of the mean old GOP's arbitrary "deadline" What a hoot. I guess that was a different Barack Obama who spent all day yesterday lobbying dem senators to defeat the Keystone Pipeline legislation. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Will you jerks put your partisan bullstojan aside for one second? Global warming isn't just a pissing contest anymore about who's science is more accurate. This stuff is serious now. http://news.blogs.cn...time/?hpt=hp_t3 !@#$ that. This is some real serious ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted March 9, 2012 Author Share Posted March 9, 2012 Remember just a few weeks ago that the President's spokesman, spun that Obama really supported the idea of a pipeline, but that he was "forced" to drop it because of the mean old GOP's arbitrary "deadline" What a hoot. I guess that was a different Barack Obama who spent all day yesterday lobbying dem senators to defeat the Keystone Pipeline legislation. . This is why I say that the guy is nowhere near the campaigner, politician, and certainly...leader he has been made out to be by the media. Nobel Peace Prize indeed. The 2008 campaign was a sham. A literal example of "preparing the path for the kid", because it's now widely evident that this guy wasn't prepared for the path. Consider: you go out and lobby people. By doing that he makes the fact that his ideology, and NOT Republican blockades, is responsible for his actions...a matter of public record. A public record, that directly contradicts what his own Press Secretary said not a month ago? Yeah, expert skill. Even more campaign commercial content for Romney. The smart play would have been to make a general speech, attempting to "clarify" what the press secretary said, not calling individuals personally like some Congressional staffer. This way you can save ass to a degree, cover ass if things get worse, and retain some dignity for the office you are supposed to be holding. Instead we get amateur hour. The only reason I can think of is: this is about money from the environtologists for direct action. If that is true, he's in even bigger trouble than I thought. And Republicans should be scared of this guy's political ability? I know half-assed VPs who scare me a hell of a lot more. At least they are able to see more than 2 moves ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/government-subsidized-green-light-bulb-carries-costly-price-tag/2012/03/07/gIQAFxOD0R_story.html $50 light bulbs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 http://www.washingto...OD0R_story.html $50 light bulbs? You know the most energy efficient light bulbs? The ones you don't turn on idiots!! At night we'll sit with maybe one light on in the house. Many evenings my wife lights candles. People freak when we tell them how low our electric bill is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) You know the most energy efficient light bulbs? The ones you don't turn on idiots!! At night we'll sit with maybe one light on in the house. Many evenings my wife lights candles. People freak when we tell them how low our electric bill is. I bet your candle bill is high though. Edited March 9, 2012 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I bet your candle bill is high though. California probably taxes the **** out of them. Air pollution. And a luxury tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 California probably taxes the **** out of them. Air pollution. And a luxury tax. Na. Its probably a Sin tax, cause you'know not everbody can afford candles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted March 9, 2012 Author Share Posted March 9, 2012 Am I the only one whose gonna haul out the "what else do you and your wife do with those candles...in the evening"? Hot wax, proximity to San Fran and it's proclivity towards S&M? Nothing? "Ow, hot. Ow, hot. Ow, hot" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I bet your candle bill is high though. My wife makes them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Am I the only one whose gonna haul out the "what else do you and your wife do with those candles...in the evening"? Hot wax, proximity to San Fran and it's proclivity towards S&M? Nothing? "Ow, hot. Ow, hot. Ow, hot" I bet they are engaging in "groupthink". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted March 9, 2012 Author Share Posted March 9, 2012 I bet they are engaging in "groupthink". Dude, you don't get the concept, nor do you get how it so obviously applies in this situation. Own it and move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts