Heretics! Burn them!!!

[/dev/null]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2120512/Global-warming-Earth-heated-medieval-times-human-CO2-emissions.html

[KD in CA]

Wait a second....you mean the planet's climate changed before humans invented SUVs?!?!? WTF, how is that possible???

[Gene Frenkle]

Nice job twisting up an interesting scientific discovery so that it neatly fits your self-serving false dichotomy!

[OCinBuffalo]

Nice job twisting up an interesting scientific discovery so that it neatly fits your self-serving false dichotomy!

hehehehehe Frenkle!

 

What, you don't like people attacking your precious near-religion unfairly? Well, that's interesting, because you and your pals have been attacking everyone unfairly, not just "deniers", but people whose minds are still open, since the beginning of all of this. You created the "rules" for discourse on this issue. Now, you are crying when people follow your rules and don't take a measured approach in their criticism? hahahahahahh

[Gene Frenkle]

hehehehehe Frenkle!

 

What, you don't like people attacking your precious near-religion unfairly? Well, that's interesting, because you and your pals have been attacking everyone unfairly, not just "deniers", but people whose minds are still open, since the beginning of all of this. You created the "rules" for discourse on this issue. Now, you are crying when people follow your rules and don't take a measured approach in their criticism? hahahahahahh

Well, you certainly make some solid, solid points there, but what else is new?

 

Care to elaborate on the rule set I supposedly instituted or even respond with an actual argument? Yeah, probably not. I mean, why start now?

[Gene Frenkle]

I guess I should just thank the Sweet Baby Jesus that you seem to have learned how to narcissistically rant and rave in more digestible bites.

[OCinBuffalo]

Well, you certainly make some solid, solid points there, but what else is new?

 

Care to elaborate on the rule set I supposedly instituted or even respond with an actual argument? Yeah, probably not. I mean, why start now?

Argument? This argument is over, politically.

 

Don't tell me you too dumb to see that. (Anybody interested in some action on this? I am setting the line at 3/1 against Frenkle getting it) And, my consistent demonstration of your feeble-mindedness doesn't make me a narcissist, it simply makes you feeble-minded. The fact that I keep reminding you of your inferiority...yeah, I can see where that could make me a narcissist. But really, it just makes me what I am: a wiseass.

 

Now, objectively, and scientifically, a lot remains to be seen. As many of us have said from the start, we have a lot more to learn. We still do. I take this as seriously as Iran getting a nuclear weapon. It's no different than any CREDIBLE threat for me, and I am sure, for most people.

 

However, the only denying that is happening here is the alarmist scientists, UN people, and political operatives denying that they were either complacent, or active participants, in making this a political weapon, without the science to back it up. They got caught, repeatedly, and now it's a political liability. They got caught because, for all their self-ascribed intellectual superiority, the reality is that they are prideful and stupid. Massively so.

 

Again, if you want something done right....put the far left in charge of doing the opposite.

[Gene Frenkle]

Argument? This argument is over, politically.

 

Don't tell me you too dumb to see that. (Anybody interested in some action on this? I am setting the line at 3/1 against Frenkle getting it) And, my consistent demonstration of your feeble-mindedness doesn't make me a narcissist, it simply makes you feeble-minded. The fact that I keep reminding you of your inferiority...yeah, I can see where that could make me a narcissist. But really, it just makes me what I am: a wiseass.

 

Now, objectively, and scientifically, a lot remains to be seen. As many of us have said from the start, we have a lot more to learn. We still do. I take this as seriously as Iran getting a nuclear weapon. It's no different than any CREDIBLE threat for me, and I am sure, for most people.

 

However, the only denying that is happening here is the alarmist scientists, UN people, and political operatives denying that they were either complacent, or active participants, in making this a political weapon, without the science to back it up. They got caught, repeatedly, and now it's a political liability. They got caught because, for all their self-ascribed intellectual superiority, the reality is that they are prideful and stupid. Massively so.

 

Again, if you want something done right....put the far left in charge of doing the opposite.

I think the most telling thing is that you think this is all about winning a political argument. "Alarmist scientists" sounds like it was drilled into your head by cable news and/or talk radio. You are a tool and a slave to your chosen political party.

 

Go Team!

 

Can't wait for your compulsive self-righteous diatribe of a response...

[DC Tom]

I think the most telling thing is that you think this is all about winning a political argument. "Alarmist scientists" "Climate change deniers" sounds like it was drilled into your head by cable news and/or talk radio. You are a tool and a slave to your chosen political party.

 

Works both ways.

 

And been my point over the past several years: "climate change" IS a political argument. It ceased being a scientific topic the moment people started crowing about "consensus".

[Gene Frenkle]

Works both ways.

 

And been my point over the past several years: "climate change" IS a political argument. It ceased being a scientific topic the moment people started crowing about "consensus".

Didn't say it wasn't. I just happen to think it shouldn't be, but that's idealistic. I try not to read too much into the political rhetoric with regard to global warming.

 

I think there are certainly "lefty alarmists" who base their opinion on nothing more than the fact that they're hippy freaks fighting against Big Oil, anything they perceive as resembling an environmental threat, conspiracy theories, etc...

 

I also think there are "deniers" who base their opinion on nothing more than the fact that they dislike the aforementioned hippy freaks, dislike Big Motherment, buy into conspiracy theories, etc...

 

There's certainly varying degrees of cultish behavior to be found in both camps.

 

While scientists are human and human nature leads people to try to support their pre-conceived notions, I don't think "alarmist scientists" are the villains here, though they are often portrayed as such by the "deniers. The thing is, the vast majority of these "alarmist scientists" will eventually change their views as the real science advances. Those who refuse will be relegated to one of the other two categories of crackpot idiots. So I continue to sit on the fence with this, arguing with freaks like OC who think it should all be about politics, who think it's about winning a game and who think they have all the answers. As I've said before, the scientific method will eventually win out.

[DC Tom]

While scientists are human and human nature leads people to try to support their pre-conceived notions, I don't think "alarmist scientists" are the villains here, though they are often portrayed as such by the "deniers. The thing is, the vast majority of these "alarmist scientists" will eventually change their views as the real science advances. Those who refuse will be relegated to one of the other two categories of crackpot idiots. So I continue to sit on the fence with this, arguing with freaks like OC who think it should all be about politics, who think it's about winning a game and who think they have all the answers. As I've said before, the scientific method will eventually win out.

 

And as I've said before...the scientific method isn't being followed. Until it is, it won't win out.

[Gene Frenkle]

And as I've said before...the scientific method isn't being followed. Until it is, it won't win out.

That sounds like the kind of blanket statement you would normally jump all over somebody for.

[DC Tom]

That sounds like the kind of blanket statement you would normally jump all over somebody for.

 

I've explained it in great detail before. If the blanket statement doesn't cause you to say to yourself "Yeah, I remember when he explained that before," then God have mercy on your brain, conner.

 

 

Really, compare and contrast global warming with the recent superluminal neutrino investigations. OPERA said "We have a spurious result, we're seeing neutrinos travel faster than light, we're going to let everyone else take a look at it." Then the experimentalists started setting up tests to confirm or deny, the theorists started trying to find ways it could be true, and no one dismissed it with "But there's a consensus!" (Even though no one actually believed it...but no one just dismissed it.) Then OPERA, despite having the confidence in the results to share them with the community, continued to investigate their own results...and found their own mistake.

 

Imagine climatologists doing the same thing? What's the last research you've seen that went against the accepted theory and suggested that global warming may be non-anthropogenic or not occurring? When's the last time a climatologist looked at such research and said "I think that's wrong...but what if it's right? Let's look into that further." When's the last time a climatologist looked at his own results with healthy skepticism? (Yes, James Hansen, I'm looking at you, you !@#$!) When's the last time a contrary result wasn't dismissed with "But there's a consensus!"?

 

 

That's the difference between science and politics.

Edited March 29, 2012 by DC Tom

[OCinBuffalo]

I think the most telling thing is that you think this is all about winning a political argument. "Alarmist scientists" sounds like it was drilled into your head by cable news and/or talk radio. You are a tool and a slave to your chosen political party.

 

Go Team!

 

Can't wait for your compulsive self-righteous diatribe of a response...

Nope. I'm just a guy who knows a potential loser political issue, or a stupid opinion based solely on ulterior motives or emotion, when I see one. I also know a winner when I see one. And, I didn't start the name calling on this issue. Besides, given what we know now, "alarmist" is a fairly accurate way to define these people. We might use the word "conspirator". But, that wouldn't be a fair way to characterize all of them. Some, I am sure, are honest. Too many, are not.

 

Come now, Frenkle, you and your "team", from 2005- June of 2009(then it was , hide) had no problem polluting this board with nonsense, and then calling us all sorts of terrible names, questioning our integrity, sanity, intelligence, etc. The bill for that behavior has come due. As I have already done with the:

"Ralph is Cheap"

"we could have traded down/up(because somebody said it on the Internet)"

"Adalius Thomas and Junior Seau = Pats SBs for the next 3 years!"

"everything Bill Belechick does is awesome(except his last 5 drafts and a boatload of FA decisions)"

"The Surge won't work(because I said so, while having no military background whatsoever)"

"Obama means an end to all war"

"The Sabres should trade Miller/Miller isn't a good goalie(who then proceeded to win the Vezina)"

"GITMO WILL be closed in the first year"

"We have to hurry up and elect the Democrats in 2006 because they will immediately do all kinds of great things(but then blame Bush for them doing literally nothing)"

"It's Bush's fault that we haven't passed a budget.....wait....oh yeah, Obama has been in office 3 years, 2 of which we had complete control of Congress, and we haven't passed a budget...so...never mind. Hey, did anybody see that Bears game on Sunday?"

and, now,

"Global Warming is man-made(because I read it on the Internet)",

 

I am here to collect the bill. Not that I expect you to pay it, but, to your credit, at least you are willing to show up here. It's not compulsive, but it is highly entertaining to watch you continue to embarrass yourselves.

 

Speaking of political winners and losers, given the benefit of hindsight(although I didn't require it at the time)....how should we now categorize the following?

"Gay Marriage"

"Global Warming"

"Cap and Trade"

"The Stimulus"

"How Obamacare was passed-->by denying the will of the people in Massachusetts, who elected a friggin Repub to Teddy Kennedy's seat to stop you"

"The Surge"

"Drone Strikes"

"GITMO"

"Obamacare contraception regulation"

"Obamacare individual mandate"

"Obamacare 2700 pages, nobody in Congress bothered to read, that a supreme court justice won't even assign to his clerks, who are by definition supposed to be hazed"

 

Look at that list....and that's just the big stuff. Lots of losers there, that could have been winners, depending on how they were played. In each instance, the far-left CHOSE the unmitigated moron's approach, and did more damage to their position than good. In that process they also destroyed the careers and stripped the Democratic party of almost all of their elected moderates at both the Federal and state level, and therefore, every chance of being in power for 20 years, or until the Republicans make another massive mistake. Great plan, enjoy the wait.

 

Now, does that make me a partisan? Or, more likely, is this simply too much objectivity for your delicate sensibilities to handle?

 

Don't misunderstand: "If you want something done right...put the far left in charge of doing the opposite", is not a saying. That's a historical, objective observation of the far left's activity since 2003, when it first became clear that the Iraq war was a major political problem.