House Democrats refuse to hear skeptic of Manbearpig

[DC Tom]

All things being equal, promising research gets funding, provided there's no retarded executive bias against the outcome.

 

Now go ahead and tell me how naive I am as to how things really work in the 'academic textbook writing' world.

 

You're naive. Promising research doesn't get funded by public funds unless it's politically promising.

 

It can, of course, get funded by private funds...but then you call such researchers shills.

[Gene Frenkle]

You're naive. Promising research doesn't get funded by public funds unless it's politically promising.

 

It can, of course, get funded by private funds...but then you call such researchers shills.

Ya, there's nothing I can say to that because you're taking a position of authority. I'm not here to convince you anyway.

 

It's the cancer cure that Big Pharma's keeping down. It's the pill you drop in your gas tank to increase fuel efficiency by 50% that Big Oil's keeping quite. It's the Thymerisal in the vaccine that's giving your kid Autism. It's a big conspiracy.

 

You win.

[DC Tom]

Ya, there's nothing I can say to that because you're taking a position of authority. I'm not here to convince you anyway.

 

It's the cancer cure that Big Pharma's keeping down. It's the pill you drop in your gas tank to increase fuel efficiency by 50% that Big Oil's keeping quite. It's the Thymerisal in the vaccine that's giving your kid Autism. It's a big conspiracy.

 

You win.

 

Yeah, I'm talking about conspiracy theories.

 

If you try to write a research proposal for a grant, that flies against the policy views of the "scientific consensus", it almost certainly won't get funded. It will be considered "not promising". A great example is AIDS research from '83-'86 - you couldn't get it funded by the US government unless you were out to prove that being gay caused AIDS. Political activism inhibits science, because it invariably allocates funding along political bias. Same thing happens with global warming - the "scientific consensus" (which is a bull sh-- term anyway - science isn't a democracy) is populated by people who have a vested fiscal and policy interest in maintaining the "scientific" status-quo, so public funding is biased towards that policy.

[OCinBuffalo]

Ya, there's nothing I can say to that because you're taking a position of authority. I'm not here to convince you anyway.

 

It's the cancer cure that Big Pharma's keeping down. It's the pill you drop in your gas tank to increase fuel efficiency by 50% that Big Oil's keeping quite. It's the Thymerisal in the vaccine that's giving your kid Autism. It's a big conspiracy.

 

You win.

Buddy, I know a guy, who lives in my parent's neighborhood, who I wave to every time I am driving into their driveway (waving is annoyingly imperative in that neighborhood). He always waves back...from his Mercedes sedan, or his Mercedes SUV hauling his Bayliner to his two story house on Seneca lake , next to the winery he partly owns, so he can moor it at is private dock. All this because he figured out a way to create the very pill you are talking about, started his own company, and almost immediately sold it to one of the oil refining companies. That's the story we heard when he moved in anyway. The other close by neighbor has a very similar story, but it doesn't involve Global Warming^TM tech.

 

So can we cut the crap on the conspiracy thing? My mother taught his kids piano for Pete's sake.

 

The undeniable fact that remains is the rest of the world has every reason to have interest in trashing our economy, since they can never, ever, ever, compete with it on = terms. Why else would they only target us, while the #1 polluter, China, and soon-to-be #2 polluter, India, get to do whatever? If you want to stop greenhouse gasses, you start with #1, right? Let's see if you can stop obfuscating and explain to me why China and India don't have to change their green house gas emissions at all in the current ALGORE, Inc. "thinking".

 

9/11 proved that, even when attacked, we can still beat them, and they weren't counting on that. Global Warming^TM is their last best hope. That's not a conspiracy theory, them's the facts plain and simple.

Yeah, I'm talking about conspiracy theories.

 

If you try to write a research proposal for a grant, that flies against the policy views of the "scientific consensus", it almost certainly won't get funded. It will be considered "not promising". A great example is AIDS research from '83-'86 - you couldn't get it funded by the US government unless you were out to prove that being gay caused AIDS. Political activism inhibits science, because it invariably allocates funding along political bias. Same thing happens with global warming - the "scientific consensus" (which is a bull sh-- term anyway - science isn't a democracy) is populated by people who have a vested fiscal and policy interest in maintaining the "scientific" status-quo, so public funding is biased towards that policy.

Finkle! Read this again and then ask yourself: What other position can an "authority" like Tom take, other than a position of authority? He can't un-know what he knows just to suit your political world view.

[Gene Frenkle]

Yeah, I'm talking about conspiracy theories.

 

If you try to write a research proposal for a grant, that flies against the policy views of the "scientific consensus", it almost certainly won't get funded. It will be considered "not promising". A great example is AIDS research from '83-'86 - you couldn't get it funded by the US government unless you were out to prove that being gay caused AIDS. Political activism inhibits science, because it invariably allocates funding along political bias. Same thing happens with global warming - the "scientific consensus" (which is a bull sh-- term anyway - science isn't a democracy) is populated by people who have a vested fiscal and policy interest in maintaining the "scientific" status-quo, so public funding is biased towards that policy.

It's a letter perfect Libertarian response and I expect nothing less.

 

I disagree with your opinion and am not trying to convince you of anything.

[Gene Frenkle]

Buddy, I know a guy, who lives in my parent's neighborhood, who I wave to every time I am driving into their driveway (waving is annoyingly imperative in that neighborhood). He always waves back...from his Mercedes sedan, or his Mercedes SUV hauling his Bayliner to his two story house on Seneca lake , next to the winery he partly owns, so he can moor it at is private dock. All this because he figured out a way to create the very pill you are talking about, started his own company, and almost immediately sold it to one of the oil refining companies. That's the story we heard when he moved in anyway. The other close by neighbor has a very similar story, but it doesn't involve Global Warming^TM tech.

 

So can we cut the crap on the conspiracy thing? My mother taught his kids piano for Pete's sake.

 

The undeniable fact that remains is the rest of the world has every reason to have interest in trashing our economy, since they can never, ever, ever, compete with it on = terms. Why else would they only target us, while the #1 polluter, China, and soon-to-be #2 polluter, India, get to do whatever? If you want to stop greenhouse gasses, you start with #1, right? Let's see if you can stop obfuscating and explain to me why China and India don't have to change their green house gas emissions at all in the current ALGORE, Inc. "thinking".

 

9/11 proved that, even when attacked, we can still beat them, and they weren't counting on that. Global Warming^TM is their last best hope. That's not a conspiracy theory, them's the facts plain and simple.

 

Finkle! Read this again and then ask yourself: What other position can an "authority" like Tom take, other than a position of authority? He can't un-know what he knows just to suit your political world view.

Have you vaccinated your children?

[OCinBuffalo]

It's a letter perfect Libertarian response and I expect nothing less.

 

I disagree with your opinion and am not trying to convince you of anything.

So you categorize it, name it, state you expectations of it, disagree with it, and won't convince anyone about it....

 

....but you won't tell us why he's wrong and you won't offer anything that proves you are right. Roger. Out.

 

What's going on here Gene?

[OCinBuffalo]

Have you vaccinated your children?

No, I believe that evil corporations are conspiring to overcharge me by $12.50 for a shot they only need once, to be cured forever, of terrible diseases like polio, and I ignore the fact that by doing so I invite the onset of those very diseases. My kids are all-natural dammit and I won't contribute to the greed of evil corporations where nobody I know works, and where none of the stuff I buy comes from.

 

Sound familiar?

 

(and I don't have kids, btw...well, any that I know about)

[Gene Frenkle]

No, I believe that evil corporations are conspiring to overcharge me by $12.50 for a shot they only need once, to be cured forever, of terrible diseases like polio, and I ignore the fact that by doing so I invite the onset of those very diseases. My kids are all-natural dammit and I won't contribute to the greed of evil corporations where nobody I know works, and where none of the stuff I buy comes from.

 

Sound familiar?

Sure, some types of people are easily drawn to a multitude of pseudosciences, while others just have a sacred cow or two.

 

(and I don't have kids, btw...well, any that I know about)

Has anyone ever suggested that you stick with that decision?

[Wacka]

The global warming believers sound very much like the creationists I argue with on another board. They are convinced that Genesis explains evolution, cosmology and chemistry. When asked they won't give you any info on their science background and believe their view without any actual proof.

[OCinBuffalo]

Sure, some types of people are easily drawn to a multitude of pseudosciences, while others just have a sacred cow or two.

Like admitting that socialism has been nothing but a colossal failure everywhere it has been tried, and, that the only places where it works are either small communities, irrelevant countries, or are being propped up by external money? (hippie communes, Sweden, Cuba)

 

If we could only finally kill off that phony, tired, old cow we could move on to really improving this world.

Has anyone ever suggested that you stick with that decision?

No one, ever. My girlfriend is on me about it suddenly, and getting married. And what does this have to do with anything? Still waiting for you to respond rationally to any of the myriad of points I have made. Let's see if you can even do one...

[Gene Frenkle]

The global warming believers sound very much like the creationists I argue with on another board. They are convinced that Genesis explains evolution, cosmology and chemistry. When asked they won't give you any info on their science background and believe their view without any actual proof.

Where is the 'God did it' in this discussion? The closest thing you have is 'The Government is doing it'. Nothing concrete.

[Wacka]

Totally missing the point. They have no idea of what science is and so do a lot of the global warmers.

[OCinBuffalo]

Totally missing the point. They have no idea of what science is and so do a lot of the global warmers.

That seems to be an slightly annoying habit with this guy. Instead of conceding points, or attempting to counter them, he changes the subject all the time.

[Alaska Darin]

I get it, you're a Libertarian, government is bad. Be suspicious of the government. You can say it until you're blue in the face.

It has nothing to do with my political ideal and much more to do with my natural skepticism. We're being sold the typical bill of goods for a variety of reasons, the largest of which is collectively humans are sheep.

In this case, you're wrong. The science today says man made global warming. You are not a climate scientist, though you may know one or think you know about it or something like that. You're no more of an authority on the subject than I and what you have to say about it means very little, just like me.

Actually, I'm quite sure I'm far more of an authority on it than you are and I'm not wrong. The "science" isn't compelling and it's not particularly good.

Without an agenda, the best either of us can do is to agree with the latest science, even if it disagrees with our ideologies.

I'm sure that's the same argument the "Earth is Flat" society used. It was really stupid then, too.

But of course, you know better and will share that opinion. Thanks in advance.

Ah, so only your "informed" regurgitation is worthy of being sent out to the masses? Noted.

 

Look, if "Global Warming" gets human beings to slow down polluting fresh water (an actual serious environmental problem), then it'll actually be worth something. Until then, it serves the purpose of making certain people rich and the masses into the panic ridden twits they continue to be.

[Gene Frenkle]

It has nothing to do with my political ideal and much more to do with my natural skepticism. We're being sold the typical bill of goods for a variety of reasons, the largest of which is collectively humans are sheep.

I appreciate your general skepticism, but your Libertarian political view is skewing your opinion on this. I understand it's a fine line as to which side of this debate is correct, so you're following your general anti-government mentality. The difference is that a true skeptic would look at both sides, relalize his inability to make an informed decision given the complexity of the issue, see the overwhelming scientific opinion of relavent scientists at this point and come to the conclusion that man made global warming is probably a reality.

 

Actually, I'm quite sure I'm far more of an authority on it than you are and I'm not wrong. The "science" isn't compelling and it's not particularly good.

Only one of us has claimed to be an authority on the subject. That either makes you a climate scientist with a rather fringe view within your peer group or a somewhat informed observer with a far less complete view of the situation than the people who are actually researching this stuff. Either way you're on the outside looking in for now.

 

I'm sure that's the same argument the "Earth is Flat" society used. It was really stupid then, too.

Very similar. Nobody knew the answer to that either. The difference is that the science eventually proved out, as it always does. Despite the UN conspiracy designed to make people think they're living on a flat Earth.

 

Ah, so only your "informed" regurgitation is worthy of being sent out to the masses? Noted.

It has nothing to do with me. I'm not the one making it all about me.

 

Look, if "Global Warming" gets human beings to slow down polluting fresh water (an actual serious environmental problem), then it'll actually be worth something. Until then, it serves the purpose of making certain people rich and the masses into the panic ridden twits they continue to be.

It's a theory that we are causing the Earth to warm up, nothing more. None of the other conspiracy crap really matters.

[Ramius]

I appreciate your general skepticism, but your Libertarian political view is skewing your opinion on this. I understand it's a fine line as to which side of this debate is correct, so you're following your general anti-government mentality. The difference is that a true skeptic would look at both sides, relalize his inability to make an informed decision given the complexity of the issue, see the overwhelming scientific opinion of relavent scientists at this point and come to the conclusion that man made global warming is probably a reality.

 

 

Only one of us has claimed to be an authority on the subject. That either makes you a climate scientist with a rather fringe view within your peer group or a somewhat informed observer with a far less complete view of the situation than the people who are actually researching this stuff. Either way you're on the outside looking in for now.

 

 

Very similar. Nobody knew the answer to that either. The difference is that the science eventually proved out, as it always does. Despite the UN conspiracy designed to make people think they're living on a flat Earth.

 

 

It has nothing to do with me. I'm not the one making it all about me.

 

 

It's a theory that we are causing the Earth to warm up, nothing more. None of the other conspiracy crap really matters.

 

Anytime one side had decided to stop listening to contrary opinions or contrary evidence, the topic ceases to be science and turns into a religion. Funny, if everyone is so sure that global warming is real, they why not listen to the opposing viewpoint and poke holes in it? Oh yeah, they can't. Why chase away someone who is presenting an opposing viewpoint? Because they are going to cast serious doubt on your little "theory."

[DC Tom]

Anytime one side had decided to stop listening to contrary opinions or contrary evidence, the topic ceases to be science and turns into a religion. Funny, if everyone is so sure that global warming is real, they why not listen to the opposing viewpoint and poke holes in it? Oh yeah, they can't. Why chase away someone who is presenting an opposing viewpoint? Because they are going to cast serious doubt on your little "theory."

 

Or, more to the point, when someone presents a criticism of your theory, why not develop a test of that criticism within your theory to attempt to disprove the criticism? That's science.

 

"We don't have to, because we have a consensus," on the other hand...not so much.

[Alaska Darin]

I appreciate your general skepticism, but your Libertarian political view is skewing your opinion on this. I understand it's a fine line as to which side of this debate is correct, so you're following your general anti-government mentality. The difference is that a true skeptic would look at both sides, relalize his inability to make an informed decision given the complexity of the issue, see the overwhelming scientific opinion of relavent scientists at this point and come to the conclusion that man made global warming is probably a reality.

What a gigantic crock of Pavlovian crap.

 

There are so many holes in "anthropogenic global warming" that the "scientists" won't even entertain real debate on it. The difference between you and I is I'm actually making an informed decision on it. It started as a lie based on the now (in)famous "Hockey Stick Graph" and people like you have allowed it to perpetuate into what is basically law because a lie repeated often enough with money behind it becomes exactly that.

 

"Global Warming" is nothing more than "Urban Heating" + "Increased Solar Activity". Period.

Only one of us has claimed to be an authority on the subject. That either makes you a climate scientist with a rather fringe view within your peer group or a somewhat informed observer with a far less complete view of the situation than the people who are actually researching this stuff. Either way you're on the outside looking in for now.

One doesn't have to be a "climate scientist" to figure this stuff out. It's not complicated to understand that we don't understand 1% of what is actually going on nor have anywhere near the accurate data required, therefore we cannot make predictions that hold any water. "Global Warming" (which is so stupid they needed a new buzzphrase. Personally I'm glad they settled on "Climate Change" because that's ALWAYS been the case) is the "Nuclear Winter" and "Salem Witch Trials" of our generation.

Very similar. Nobody knew the answer to that either. The difference is that the science eventually proved out, as it always does. Despite the UN conspiracy designed to make people think they're living on a flat Earth.

And science will one day look back on this ridiculousness and prove it to be exactly what it is. And you'll be incredibly wrong, just like the "Flat Earthers".

It has nothing to do with me. I'm not the one making it all about me.

Really? Who brought up the fact that I only think this way because of my political ideals?

It's a theory that we are causing the Earth to warm up, nothing more. None of the other conspiracy crap really matters.

Incompetence isn't conspiratorial.

[Gene Frenkle]

What a gigantic crock of Pavlovian crap.

 

There are so many holes in "anthropogenic global warming" that the "scientists" won't even entertain real debate on it. The difference between you and I is I'm actually making an informed decision on it. It started as a lie based on the now (in)famous "Hockey Stick Graph" and people like you have allowed it to perpetuate into what is basically law because a lie repeated often enough with money behind it becomes exactly that.

 

"Global Warming" is nothing more than "Urban Heating" + "Increased Solar Activity". Period.

 

One doesn't have to be a "climate scientist" to figure this stuff out. It's not complicated to understand that we don't understand 1% of what is actually going on nor have anywhere near the accurate data required, therefore we cannot make predictions that hold any water. "Global Warming" (which is so stupid they needed a new buzzphrase. Personally I'm glad they settled on "Climate Change" because that's ALWAYS been the case) is the "Nuclear Winter" and "Salem Witch Trials" of our generation.

 

And science will one day look back on this ridiculousness and prove it to be exactly what it is. And you'll be incredibly wrong, just like the "Flat Earthers".

 

Really? Who brought up the fact that I only think this way because of my political ideals?

 

Incompetence isn't conspiratorial.

And here I thought you had a rational head for this stuff. No matter how objective a person may appear, there will always be issues that will drive nearly anyone to over-simplification, ad hominem rationalization, fantastical thinking and general credulity.

 

Global Warming can be boiled down to: "Urban Heating" + "Increased Solar Activity". Period.? Really? I thought global climate analysis was a lot more complicated than that. Seems silly that there's such a fuss over a simple thing like you described.

 

Before you put your crystal ball away, would you mind telling me which stocks will perform best over the next 20 years? Maybe next week's lottery numbers? Thanks.