Should conservative climate deniers be despised for the threat they pose...

[Londo_Jowo]

Moonie, is it time for one of your patented profanity laced temper tantrums?

 

[Moonbeam]

Moonie, is it time for one of your patented profanity laced temper tantrums?

Good, you knew immediately the words that would describe you. That's a start.

 

[xj0hnx]

Good, you knew immediately the words that would describe you. That's a start.

HAHAHA, what sad clownshoes you are.

Moonie: Agree with me or your mentally deficient.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Good, you knew immediately the words that would describe you. That's a start.

Would you like me to post links to all your anger and profanity filled temper tantrum posts you've made in the last few weeks? I know for a fact you won't find a single one posted by me.

 

[Moonbeam]

HAHAHA, what sad clownshoes you are.

Moonie: Agree with me or your mentally deficient.

I just addressed werepossum for doing that crap. You are mentally defective because you're mentally defective, not because I say so. And, as a famously well know idiot here, it's not that thinking people don't see it. Science has dispensed with the notion that liberal and conservative bias are equivalent. You guys are the sick ones, sorry. You completely lost your mind here because I attacked your ego. Must be great to be two. But help yourself. Just fall on the floor and kick and scream some more.

 

[xj0hnx]

I just addressed werepossum for doing that crap. You are mentally defective because you're mentally defective, not because I say so. And, as a famously well know idiot here, it's not that thinking people don't see it. Science has dispensed with the notion that liberal and conservative bias are equivalent. You guys are the sick ones, sorry. You completely lost your mind here because I attacked your ego. Must be great to be two. But help yourself. Just fall on the floor and kick and scream some more.

Sorry clownshoes, I am not the one that is mentally defective, or the "famously known idiot" you have those sole honors. Don't get me wrong, I am glad you post here though, it's fun to laugh at you.

 

[Rainsford]

I too was homophobic as a teenager, and I was also adamant that mankind was forcing the Earth into a new ice age. Turns out not so much, so forgive me if I fail to embrace the new projected catastrophe with as much enthusiasm as the left might wish. I remain agnostic about the degree to which human activity is affecting climate and very agnostic about the catastrophic results bound to ensue. Curiously, the very actions required to combat the coming catastrophic ice age - loss of individual transportation in favor of public transit, moving humanity into high density housing, increased government control, lower individual energy budgets set by government - seem to be the same actions required to combat catastrophic man-made global warming.

Nonetheless, there are things which I do agree are common sense and should be pursued. Alternatives to oil make sense on many levels. Increased energy efficiency in housing/commercial buildings, transportation, and electronics makes sense - one of the big reasons we're projected to regain some manufacturing is our low energy costs, and using less reduces price pressures. High CO2 levels increase ocean acidity, causing many bad effects on already-stressed marine ecosystems, as well as increasing aquatic ecosystems' acidity and increasing erosion, so producing less and sequestering more CO2 is smart. I will likely remain forever resistant however to this notion of science as G-d, requiring us all to pledge allegiance to whatever theory is currently popular and turn over control of society to government on its behalf.

I don't think anyone should be "despised", as Moonbeam suggests, but I do think that attitude is a serious problem...and not just for the climate debate. Science can only be rejected or fixed by better science. Once we start deciding to ignore science for other reasons, we're basically screwed, because science can never be inform a debate as long as enough people believe that scientific debate is ultimately answerable to something else. Not just because it doesn't make a ton of sense to me, but because the "something else" is not very well defined. After all, if you're not going to believe science on the global warming issue, what ARE you going to believe?

I think all science should be taken with a grain of salt, but with an informed grain of scientific salt, not just arbitrary skepticism. And when it's very widely supported science against "science has been wrong in the past", it's starting to look less like skepticism and more like something else.

Your argument doesn't sound so bad on the surface until you think about the lack of a counter argument that would change your mind. You could use the same argument in perpetuity to argue global warming isn't real. No amount of data, no amount of study, no amount of scientific consensus requires changing a word of what you posted. And if you ARE wrong about the science, isn't that kind of a problem?

 

[Moonbeam]

Would you like me to post links to all your anger and profanity filled temper tantrum posts you've made in the last few weeks? I know for a fact you won't find a single one posted by me.

My question was whether you deserve it. My contention and the scientific research in neuroscience says that conservatives can't logically reason, that they live in an altered reality, that their delusional state makes the dangerous and that the more you show then how wrong they are using logic, the more convinced they become they are right. What a hideously disgusting condition in which to find oneself, no? What should functional people do with you? How are you different than a leper a thousand years ago? Right now there doesn't seem to be a cure for the conservative disease. The majority of the House is completely mad and we are going over a tiny cliff. There are many worse we have to face down the road.

 

[Moonbeam]

Sorry clownshoes, I am not the one that is mentally defective, or the "famously known idiot" you have those sole honors. Don't get me wrong, I am glad you post here though, it's fun to laugh at you.

Yes, and it's just as fun for me to lead you around by your nose ring.

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't think anyone should be "despised", as Moonbeam suggests, but I do think that attitude is a serious problem...and not just for the climate debate. Science can only be rejected or fixed by better science. Once we start deciding to ignore science for other reasons, we're basically screwed, because science can never be inform a debate as long as enough people believe that scientific debate is ultimately answerable to something else. Not just because it doesn't make a ton of sense to me, but because the "something else" is not very well defined. After all, if you're not going to believe science on the global warming issue, what ARE you going to believe?

I think all science should be taken with a grain of salt, but with an informed grain of scientific salt, not just arbitrary skepticism. And when it's very widely supported science against "science has been wrong in the past", it's starting to look less like skepticism and more like something else.

Your argument doesn't sound so bad on the surface until you think about the lack of a counter argument that would change your mind. You could use the same argument in perpetuity to argue global warming isn't real. No amount of data, no amount of study, no amount of scientific consensus requires changing a word of what you posted. And if you ARE wrong about the science, isn't that kind of a problem?

Why don't you think they shouldn't be despised and you surely know you are appealing to reason. While your arguments are immanently logical to me, surely you see they will go right over their heads. Science itself shows them to be beyond reason.

 

[Screech]

Moonbeam: assuming you are anointed Supreme Ruler of the US and all the conservatives are put to death (with, magically, no impact on the american economy), what would you do to fix/prevent/avert global warming?

 

[werepossum]

I don't think anyone should be "despised", as Moonbeam suggests, but I do think that attitude is a serious problem...and not just for the climate debate. Science can only be rejected or fixed by better science. Once we start deciding to ignore science for other reasons, we're basically screwed, because science can never be inform a debate as long as enough people believe that scientific debate is ultimately answerable to something else. Not just because it doesn't make a ton of sense to me, but because the "something else" is not very well defined. After all, if you're not going to believe science on the global warming issue, what ARE you going to believe?

I think all science should be taken with a grain of salt, but with an informed grain of scientific salt, not just arbitrary skepticism. And when it's very widely supported science against "science has been wrong in the past", it's starting to look less like skepticism and more like something else.

Your argument doesn't sound so bad on the surface until you think about the lack of a counter argument that would change your mind. You could use the same argument in perpetuity to argue global warming isn't real. No amount of data, no amount of study, no amount of scientific consensus requires changing a word of what you posted. And if you ARE wrong about the science, isn't that kind of a problem?

You make good points, but what if the science is junk science? For instance, Mann's famous hockey stick graph of average temperatures wouldn't pass muster in a fifth grade science experiment were it not politically useful - it completely neglects the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, not to mention that he takes proxies from a variety of areas with no apparent concern for anything but that they fit. It's modern eugenics. The same can be said for climate models that purport to match reality, then we learn the "scientists" are falsifying data, using actual measurements because the model does not in fact reflect reality.

If we are to use science to make policy, then it needs to be extremely sound science. For climate modeling we've seen that it works very well in predicting the past - simply add variables and adjust until the curve fits - but it's pure caca for predicting the future. Now if the cost of "fixing" global warming was negligible that wouldn't really matter, but the cost is anything but. Advocates of CAGW want nothing less than complete government control and a radical reshaping of our society. The required cost both in economic terms and in lost liberty is astounding.

Consider too the rate of expansion of our universe. Up until we placed very sophisticated instruments in space, scientific consensus was that the rate of expansion was slowing; there simply was no significant opposition. The many experiments to measure this negative acceleration were all unanimous that it WAS a negative acceleration, because data that showed otherwise were bad data by definition. Well, surprise - the unpublishable experiments that showed positive acceleration were correct and the consensus of all the scientists was wrong. No problem - scientists merely flipped gravity for dark matter (never observed in nature, but whatever) and this positive acceleration became the new consensus. Now compare this to CAGW. Ignoring for a moment the underlying desire for greater government control, what if we're radically wrong about global warming? We know the Earth undergoes cyclical climate variations even before evil white men started trying to destroy it, cycles about which we are largely clueless. Assuming for a moment that we actually could materially change the Earth's climate by replacing oil with proper tire inflation, if we provide negative feedback when the Earth (a beautifully designed system of unimaginable complexity) is also providing negative feedback we could conceivably kick off a new ice age, which is undeniably far, far more catastrophic to virtually all life than is warming. Adapting to life in a warmer climate is child's play compared to adapting to life on a glacier.

 

[Moonbeam]

Moonbeam: assuming you are anointed Supreme Ruler of the US and all the conservatives are put to death (with, magically, no impact on the american economy), what would you do to fix/prevent/avert global warming?

Should you be despised because you want to change the topic of the thread?

I am a nobody. My opinion is of no matter. If the doctor says I have arm cancer and my arm has to come off, it's time to say good bye to my arm, no? I'm not werepossum who thinks he's a cancer expert who just has bad freckles.

 

[Moonbeam]

You make good points, but what if the science is junk science? For instance, Mann's famous hockey stick graph of average temperatures wouldn't pass muster in a fifth grade science experiment were it not politically useful - it completely neglects the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, not to mention that he takes proxies from a variety of areas with no apparent concern for anything but that they fit. It's modern eugenics. The same can be said for climate models that purport to match reality, then we learn the "scientists" are falsifying data, using actual measurements because the model does not in fact reflect reality.

If we are to use science to make policy, then it needs to be extremely sound science. For climate modeling we've seen that it works very well in predicting the past - simply add variables and adjust until the curve fits - but it's pure caca for predicting the future. Now if the cost of "fixing" global warming was negligible that wouldn't really matter, but the cost is anything but. Advocates of CAGW want nothing less than complete government control and a radical reshaping of our society. The required cost both in economic terms and in lost liberty is astounding.

Consider too the rate of expansion of our universe. Up until we placed very sophisticated instruments in space, scientific consensus was that the rate of expansion was slowing; there simply was no significant opposition. The many experiments to measure this negative acceleration were all unanimous that it WAS a negative acceleration, because data that showed otherwise were bad data by definition. Well, surprise - the unpublishable experiments that showed positive acceleration were correct and the consensus of all the scientists was wrong. No problem - scientists merely flipped gravity for dark matter (never observed in nature, but whatever) and this positive acceleration became the new consensus. Now compare this to CAGW. Ignoring for a moment the underlying desire for greater government control, what if we're radically wrong about global warming? We know the Earth undergoes cyclical climate variations even before evil white men started trying to destroy it, cycles about which we are largely clueless. Assuming for a moment that we actually could materially change the Earth's climate by replacing oil with proper tire inflation, if we provide negative feedback when the Earth (a beautifully designed system of unimaginable complexity) is also providing negative feedback we could conceivably kick off a new ice age, which is undeniably far, far more catastrophic to virtually all life than is warming. Adapting to life in a warmer climate is child's play compared to adapting to life on a glacier.

Rainsford, you make good points but.......

 

[glenn1]

Moonbeam: assuming you are anointed Supreme Ruler of the US and all the conservatives are put to death (with, magically, no impact on the american economy), what would you do to fix/prevent/avert global warming?

Likely he wants nothing more than the only two things environmentalists typically agree on; banning SUVs and building more trains (whether light rail or high-speed variety).

 

[Matt1970]

Should you be despised because you want to change the topic of the thread?

I am a nobody. My opinion is of no matter. If the doctor says I have arm cancer and my arm has to come off, it's time to say good bye to my arm, no? I'm not werepossum who thinks he's a cancer expert who just has bad freckles.

It still gives us great amusement.

 

[Matt1970]

Likely he wants nothing more than the only two things environmentalists typically agree on; banning SUVs and building more trains (whether light rail or high-speed variety).

And don't forget slapping taxes on everything they deem a threat to the environment or your health.

 

[werepossum]

Should you be despised because you want to change the topic of the thread?

I am a nobody. My opinion is of no matter. If the doctor says I have arm cancer and my arm has to come off, it's time to say good bye to my arm, no? I'm not werepossum who thinks he's a cancer expert who just has bad freckles.

See, a smart person would get a second opinion. And if both doctors say "You can't see the cancer on any test, but trust me it's there" . . .

 

[Screech]

Should you be despised because you want to change the topic of the thread?

I am a nobody. My opinion is of no matter. If the doctor says I have arm cancer and my arm has to come off, it's time to say good bye to my arm, no? I'm not werepossum who thinks he's a cancer expert who just has bad freckles.

I think littering is a better analogy. Now certainly we agree that littering is bad, yes? So surely we do not want to litter. Now if you want to argue that we should make fun of people who think littering does not exist and leave it at that then certainly that is all well and good and we should be on our merry way and that's it. We can retain our own opinions on the subject for better or worse and there is no consequence.

Of course, generally you are arguing a political matter for the sake of seeking a change in policy, and so it certainly is necessary to bring into question exactly what you would do differently with regards to littering if you are making a thread that makes fun of those who think there is no such thing.

Now if I agree with you that littering is bad, what if I also believe that having everyone's hands and feet cut off to decrease the amount that we might litter is a bad idea, especially if people that live in the nearby town (ie, china) will come over here, complete with both arms and legs, and litter and retain their appendages? Surely that sounds like a bad policy, although i hardly think it changes my opinion that littering does indeed exist.

*note for those who are bad with symbolism: I generally agree that we are indeed having an effect on atmospheric concentrations of certain gases. I disagree that neutering our economies while china continues to pollute to their hearts content is a reasonable policy to deal with that.

 

[xj0hnx]

Yes, and it's just as fun for me to lead you around by your nose ring.

What? That's it? Come on, you can do better than that, let that venom floooooow ...

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

My only skepticism with global warming is that every activist I have ever seen can't explain the ice age. It's as if they believe everything with the earth is figured out and we know everything. How do we know that the earth isn't a constant loop of ice age when needed? How do we know the earth doesn't evolve as things such as CO2 emissions rise?

 

[Greenman]

to life on earth?

What do you do when an millions of idiots are holding a gun to your head because they live in an alternate universe too afraid to face reality? What to do when a hallucinating psychopath tries to grab the wheel and drive over a cliff for safety?

Conservatives are bad bad poo poo.

The last line of that post pretty much sums up everything you've ever said in P&N. Tragically, it also sums up the depth of your intellect as well.

 

[Moonbeam]

See, a smart person would get a second opinion. And if both doctors say "You can't see the cancer on any test, but trust me it's there" . . .

Steve Jobs went with quack medicine and is dead. He was doubtless much smarter than me. Don't beat analogies to death. It hurts their feelings.

 

[Moonbeam]

My only skepticism with global warming is that every activist I have ever seen can't explain the ice age. It's as if they believe everything with the earth is figured out and we know everything. How do we know that the earth isn't a constant loop of ice age when needed? How do we know the earth doesn't evolve as things such as CO2 emissions rise?

How do we know your head isn't a rabbit. How did you grow to adulthood not knowing how to think?

s: My only skepticism with global warming is that every activist I have ever seen can't explain the ice age.

M: Global warming is based on science. What activists think has nothing to do with anything, nothing at all.

s: It's as if they believe everything with the earth is figured out and we know everything.

M: One activist may know something, another nothing at all. They are irrelevant to the science. What they think they know or don't know doesn't mean f all.

s: How do we know that the earth isn't a constant loop of ice age when needed?

M: Jesus Christ, I'm still trying to figure if the Moon is green cheese.

s: How do we know the earth doesn't evolve as things such as CO2 emissions rise?

M: Don't ever ask me stuff like that if I'm holding a horse whip.

 

[Moonbeam]

The last line of that post pretty much sums up everything you've ever said in P&N. Tragically, it also sums up the depth of your intellect as well.

For the love of Christ, Greenman, look at yourself, reduced to talking about poo poo to make me look tragic. How tragic can you be. Go take a bath, you've gotten all dirty. How could a man of your refinement stoop so low. You should be ashamed of yourself.