TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
How can anyone argue with all the proof you provided of your statement?
:roll:
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
The Bush Administration's War on Science... AGAIN
Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
:roll:
ThinksLikeChicken: "This is Private Chickenshit of AFGWC at Offut AFB overseas for Army support working in the field. We have predicted a sunny day in the field. Soldiers, it will be 130 in the battlefield today and full sun. Take your sunscreen. OK Charley, get the report cleared with the White House. It needs to run by the OMB." We don't want any info to leak that might affect moral and cause the lefty soldiers among us to panic.
Charlie: Um, the OMB says data on weather is highly speculative and the models are very weak. Nobody really knows what the weather will be with absolute certainty. They want you to say Sunny and mild with a slight chance of rain because 130 degrees is just too fucking hot and even some of our gung ho righties won't want to fight in that.
ThinksLikeChicken: Sure thing, Charlie. If they get sun burned, fuck um.
Charlie: Um, the OMB says data on weather is highly speculative and the models are very weak. Nobody really knows what the weather will be with absolute certainty. They want you to say Sunny and mild with a slight chance of rain because 130 degrees is just too fucking hot and even some of our gung ho righties won't want to fight in that.
ThinksLikeChicken: Sure thing, Charlie. If they get sun burned, fuck um.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
There are no privates in the Air Force, Moonie.
As far as forecasting weather, we can do that with far more confidence than we can forecast climate change, and even then we get weather for the next day wrong quite frequently. Imagine trying to forecast 50 or 100 years into the future?
What am I saying? Don't imagine that. Who am I to burst your bubble of stupid? Please remain confined in it, staring out and insisting that everyone else is distorted and mis-shapen because that's the view from within your little bubble and it must ne the one true view.
You will note though, fucktard, that we still don't censor the weather report despite how wrong it can be. We don't have a bunch of assholes in Washington trying to keep the Senate from knowing the predicted day's temperature because it might influence their vote on the farm bill. You, all on you own but doubtless with input from other fools, have come to the conclusion that GW remains little understood and not amenable to valid prediction. You jump from this pure opinion to suppressing data regarding disease, etc, that may happen when things warm. You then try to say it will be cooler is some places, or your fellow idiots do, and that just because it may doesn't mean it will. Duh! Your points have nothing to do with anything. Now you tell me my congressional representatives shouldn't have any data you deem unreliable when you are a big fat nobody. I want my representatives, who will make decisions for me, to have all the stupid ignorant unreliable unscience the unscientific community comes to. Take your opinion of what is good for me and shove it up your ass. Do not suppress scientific information because you in your arrogance think you are God and can just announce it isn't science. You are a frightened little fascist control freak.
By the way, I have no bubble. I have no irons in this fire. I challenged all your stupid changing reasons why we need to suppress data and that's all. I took no position on any side of GW its validity, the state of the science, how accurate predictions can be or any of the rest of it. I have one position and that is the administration should not seek to suppress scientific data for what look to be political reasons.
Oh and ThinksLikeChicken is in the Army not the Air Force. You may taste like chicken but you're not smart enough to think like one yet. But not to worry, we'll work on it together.
Moonbeam, you assume too much. You think that non supression will make things better, but when ever politics gets involved it makes things worse. Take for example DDT. Many people died over a political move that was wrong. Tastes like a Chicken is right. We don't need people spouting off about what might be, we need people searching for the correct answers. I respect Michael Crichton very much, and he has the sounded arguement for this whole matter. 100 years ago they had no idea that we would be putting 100s of people in the air on flights, they had no concept of the ability of computers, they had no idea that a man would walk on the moon. Who is to say that we won't adapt to GW if it is truly happening. It is all mute. Sensable heads, unlike yours, need to prevail.
Comanche: Moonbeam, you assume too much. You think that non supression will make things better, but when ever politics gets involved it makes things worse.
M: Can you not see that it is you who is making assumptions. What is the corollary to non suppression will make things better', that suppression will make things better? How did you come to assume that? Where did you get the idea that if politics gets involved it makes things worse. How, for the love of God, did you escape the realization that the suppression of the information in question here was anything at all but a 100% pure political act. Jesus Christ! You are essentially saying your X-ray doctor should conceal from your oncologist that you have a spot on your lung because you are running for mayor and the news might dampen your enthusiasm for the campaign. You have somehow gotten the world up side down.
C: Take for example DDT. Many people died over a political move that was wrong.
M: Huh huh huh??? Wanna go over that and say something?
C: Tastes like a Chicken is right. We don't need people spouting off about what might be, we need people searching for the correct answers.
M: Nice, another God has come on the scene, another arrogant person who thinks his notion of what is science and what is spouting carry some scientific weight. Here we have another fool who demands that science give him answers pleasing to his ego, those that match his built in infallible notion of what HE thinks is correct. Go fly a kite. Who the hell are you? You're just another ignorant butt-wad control freak who thinks he can tell the scientific world what to think.
C: I respect Michael Crichton very much, and he has the sounded arguement for this whole matter.
M: This is not English and makes no sense at all and I don't give two flying figs about Michael Crichton.
C: 100 years ago they had no idea that we would be putting 100s of people in the air on flights, they had no concept of the ability of computers, they had no idea that a man would walk on the moon.
M: Yes, they remind me of you.
C: Who is to say that we won't adapt to GW if it is truly happening. It is all mute. Sensable heads, unlike yours, need to prevail.
M: Yup, why don't you jump out of a tall building somewhere, because, WHO KNOWS, maybe by the time you're just about to hit the ground good old George Bush will have sprouted wings and catch you mid air.
Do we still have people on the planet who can think?
M: Can you not see that it is you who is making assumptions. What is the corollary to non suppression will make things better', that suppression will make things better? How did you come to assume that? Where did you get the idea that if politics gets involved it makes things worse. How, for the love of God, did you escape the realization that the suppression of the information in question here was anything at all but a 100% pure political act. Jesus Christ! You are essentially saying your X-ray doctor should conceal from your oncologist that you have a spot on your lung because you are running for mayor and the news might dampen your enthusiasm for the campaign. You have somehow gotten the world up side down.
C: Take for example DDT. Many people died over a political move that was wrong.
M: Huh huh huh??? Wanna go over that and say something?
C: Tastes like a Chicken is right. We don't need people spouting off about what might be, we need people searching for the correct answers.
M: Nice, another God has come on the scene, another arrogant person who thinks his notion of what is science and what is spouting carry some scientific weight. Here we have another fool who demands that science give him answers pleasing to his ego, those that match his built in infallible notion of what HE thinks is correct. Go fly a kite. Who the hell are you? You're just another ignorant butt-wad control freak who thinks he can tell the scientific world what to think.
C: I respect Michael Crichton very much, and he has the sounded arguement for this whole matter.
M: This is not English and makes no sense at all and I don't give two flying figs about Michael Crichton.
C: 100 years ago they had no idea that we would be putting 100s of people in the air on flights, they had no concept of the ability of computers, they had no idea that a man would walk on the moon.
M: Yes, they remind me of you.
C: Who is to say that we won't adapt to GW if it is truly happening. It is all mute. Sensable heads, unlike yours, need to prevail.
M: Yup, why don't you jump out of a tall building somewhere, because, WHO KNOWS, maybe by the time you're just about to hit the ground good old George Bush will have sprouted wings and catch you mid air.
Do we still have people on the planet who can think?
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
You will note though, dipshit, that we have a much higher confidence in weather forecasting because even though meteorologists get it wrong due to the chaotic behaviour of the systems involved, more often than not they are right. The difference is that we are not able at this point to forecast GW with ANY confidence whatsoever. The GW forecasters haven't been right yet. We can model weather with some confidence. We can't model GW worth a damn.
Does that REALLY need to be explained to you? Can you NOT see the difference? Are you THAT blindly stupid?
Now stop being a flamingly ignorant asshole about this and move on to something that you have the first clue about. This subject is obviously way beyond your intellectual capacity and actually requires a bit of common sense instead of your knee-jerking and gum flapping responses.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
QFS :thumbsup:
TLC: You will note though, dipshit, that we have a much higher confidence in weather forecasting because even though meteorologists get it wrong due to the chaotic behaviour of the systems involved, more often than not they are right. The difference is that we are not able at this point to forecast GW with ANY confidence whatsoever. The GW forecasters haven't been right yet. We can model weather with some confidence. We can't model GW worth a damn.
M: So fucking what. We are talking, not about the predictive accuracy of GW theory, as I have told you over and over again, a fact that cant seem to penetrate your brick lined head.
We are talking about suppressing data regarding the potential risks that will occur if the climate warns. If it doesn't warm, great, if it does government officials should know what consequences science can predict to properly formulate policy by understanding sciences best guess risk. If global warming means flowers to put in your hair earlier in spring their will be no need for much thought, but if millions could lose their lives we might want to do what we can to act to stave that off.
This is the real issue. Money is involved and an established interest doesn't want to pay, just as the tobacco companies tried to suppress health data about cigarettes so congress wouldn't regulate. For every doom and gloomer there is a Pollyanna imbecile who thinks that burying his head in the sand is the best way to protect his ass.
This is why we need the data and why we can't allow special political interests to suppress it. They have motive other than science.
Imagine a government of Democrats suppressing data on the effectiveness of say breeder reactors for eliminating nuclear waste because they don't like nuclear and all you hear from them is that the data has to be suppressed because the science hasn't been sufficiently tested and is way to dangerous to test.
You are blinded by focus on the correctness of some small point in you argument and completely ignore the overarching issues.
TLC: Does that REALLY need to be explained to you? Can you NOT see the difference? Are you THAT blindly stupid?
M: Hehe, again, of course I can see THAT. I can also see that it has nothing at all to do with the issue or imply that data should be suppressed that has nothing to do with THAT.
TLC: Now stop being a flamingly ignorant asshole about this and move on to something that you have the first clue about. This subject is obviously way beyond your intellectual capacity and actually requires a bit of common sense instead of your knee-jerking and gum flapping responses.
M: I am quite happily content that in every way in this discussion I have had the logic and reason and you have been out to lunch. Furthermore, I have hardly expresses a personal opinion on the matter. What I have done is show you how unreasoned and irrational your own opinions are. All you've done is demonstrate your an idiot and I've pointed it out. I think you're irritated at the wrong person. I could have never shown what a gas bag you are if you hadn't puffed yourself full of hot air.
M: So fucking what. We are talking, not about the predictive accuracy of GW theory, as I have told you over and over again, a fact that cant seem to penetrate your brick lined head.
We are talking about suppressing data regarding the potential risks that will occur if the climate warns. If it doesn't warm, great, if it does government officials should know what consequences science can predict to properly formulate policy by understanding sciences best guess risk. If global warming means flowers to put in your hair earlier in spring their will be no need for much thought, but if millions could lose their lives we might want to do what we can to act to stave that off.
This is the real issue. Money is involved and an established interest doesn't want to pay, just as the tobacco companies tried to suppress health data about cigarettes so congress wouldn't regulate. For every doom and gloomer there is a Pollyanna imbecile who thinks that burying his head in the sand is the best way to protect his ass.
This is why we need the data and why we can't allow special political interests to suppress it. They have motive other than science.
Imagine a government of Democrats suppressing data on the effectiveness of say breeder reactors for eliminating nuclear waste because they don't like nuclear and all you hear from them is that the data has to be suppressed because the science hasn't been sufficiently tested and is way to dangerous to test.
You are blinded by focus on the correctness of some small point in you argument and completely ignore the overarching issues.
TLC: Does that REALLY need to be explained to you? Can you NOT see the difference? Are you THAT blindly stupid?
M: Hehe, again, of course I can see THAT. I can also see that it has nothing at all to do with the issue or imply that data should be suppressed that has nothing to do with THAT.
TLC: Now stop being a flamingly ignorant asshole about this and move on to something that you have the first clue about. This subject is obviously way beyond your intellectual capacity and actually requires a bit of common sense instead of your knee-jerking and gum flapping responses.
M: I am quite happily content that in every way in this discussion I have had the logic and reason and you have been out to lunch. Furthermore, I have hardly expresses a personal opinion on the matter. What I have done is show you how unreasoned and irrational your own opinions are. All you've done is demonstrate your an idiot and I've pointed it out. I think you're irritated at the wrong person. I could have never shown what a gas bag you are if you hadn't puffed yourself full of hot air.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
Moonpie. Being able to predict GW with some accuracy IS the central point. If we can't predict GW how can we possibly predict the changes in disease vectors caused by GW, for which properly predicting them with any semblance of accuracy is contingent on predicting the changes in climate in the first place? Being able to forecast GW with some confidence is absolutely necessary before the associated factors can be determined. You are attempting to put the cart before the horse.
Or are you claiming that such predictions require no accuracy? Scientists should make predictions nilly-willy and should base their predictions on a field of study for which the current science continually fails to match observations?
If that's the case then, here.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21518056/
Some guy claims he took some pictures of bigfoot. Let's have him testify before Congress about how bigfoot is out there and is out to get us all. Think of the diseases bigfoot could spread that we know nothing about.
The issue is not about supressing data or corporate influence either, unless you have some proof that the Exon execs called up the White House to have them quash the information in this speech. Your own paranoia about corporate influence doesn't make for proof, it just makes you paranoid. Insisting that highly speculative and opinionated information be put forth, even if it is from scientists, is just plain stupid. So you are practising stupid paranoia to boot.
Stop being so stupidly paranoid.
Or are you claiming that such predictions require no accuracy? Scientists should make predictions nilly-willy and should base their predictions on a field of study for which the current science continually fails to match observations?
If that's the case then, here.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21518056/
Some guy claims he took some pictures of bigfoot. Let's have him testify before Congress about how bigfoot is out there and is out to get us all. Think of the diseases bigfoot could spread that we know nothing about.
The issue is not about supressing data or corporate influence either, unless you have some proof that the Exon execs called up the White House to have them quash the information in this speech. Your own paranoia about corporate influence doesn't make for proof, it just makes you paranoid. Insisting that highly speculative and opinionated information be put forth, even if it is from scientists, is just plain stupid. So you are practising stupid paranoia to boot.
Stop being so stupidly paranoid.
We have been over and over this time and again. The health effects that can be estimated by a warming of the climate are based of solid science and understanding. They are predictive based on temperature. If the earth warms the danger associated with higher temp diseases will spread. This is obvious to anybody with a brain. When you face a challenge like the possibility that the earth is warming you want to study that possibility and you want to assess the seriousness with which you devote resources to that study based on probable risks. We aren't going to devote a big chunk of the treasure to the climatic dangers posed to gofers in the South West, but we will need to plan for what could turn into a human catastrophe.
To recognize that changing climate can lead to disaster isn't doom and gloom if the science tells you of that possibility. The fact that such knowledge makes you poop in your pants at the fear others will panic is symptomatic of your own paranoia, not mine. It is simply what the scientific data suggests. That is important for rational people to know and assess.
You are of the opinion that because GW is imprecise all information related to temperature change is nonsense. That is absurd. Now when any rational mind sees the utter bankruptcy of your position they are left to the question as to what is the real motive the data was censured and by a politically driven, not a scientifically driven, branch of the government. You are free to draw your own conclusions and me mine. I happen to think my explanation makes more sense than you have in this entire thread. But I don't have to know why data is suppressed to object to its suppression. I am not paranoid like you. I believe that scientific information should lead our understanding. The truth and the light depend of freedom and openness in exploration of the world, and not in data manipulation. You have no business denying me information as to what the best and brightest of our scientists think, what is the consensus among objective scientists.
I don't give a crap you don't trust them and think they are biases. But I don't care what you believe so long as folk don't censor the data because it doesn't jibe with the political message you want to project.
And thanks for the big foot thingi. It shows that when you open your mouth you do so to change feet. It must be nice to have feet big enough that match your mouth.
I'd stay away from Chinese restaurants if I were you.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
You should stay away from any discussion on climate because you don't have the first clue about it.
Yes, we know the climate is changing. Right now we call it global warming and we don't know the why, how, when or what of that process. Do you even have the slightest idea that GW is not some monolithic change that affects everything around the globe equally? GW manifests itself regionally. Currently some areas have high rates of change while others encounter very little to no change. We don't understand why that's happening either or if that will change in the years to come. It's even been suggested that what we view as global warming is actually the segue into the next ice age. But you clearly don't know any of that or else you would've dropped your moronic assertions long ago instead of chasing this spectre that's your own imagination of what GW is.
Sure, the health effects can be estimated - very, very poorly and with a low confidence of those estimations coming to fruition. About all we can really say about the spread of diseases using our current understanding of GW is that it might happen or it might not. However, if you feel that sloppy estimations are the right thing to do then, by all means, let's follow Moonbeam's advice and fire up the prognostication machine. Let's spew all kinds of predictions based on issues we don't have a decent grasp of yet while we're at it too.
As far as pooping in their pants, who is the paranoid and irrational one in here claiming conspiracies and corporate influences are behind this supposed "censorship" when they don't have the first bit of evidence to back up that assertion? You're the one fearful of what climate change may bring. You're the one who needs to have this information rushed out to our government right now in that typical sort of fearmongering, Chicken Little-ish manner. But, hey, it's the liberal way to make such premature ejaculations where doom & gloom are concerned. We've certainly seen evidence of that over the last 7 years.
Me afraid? Not based on what you're typing and posting in this forum, pal. It's highly evidence that you're the one shaking in your boots. I have no such fears. My only concern is making premature announcements that are contingent on a climate issue that we still don't understand well enough to make the basic predictions, let alone something as complex as the spread of disease vectors. I'm have no qualms whatsoever to make such predictions when we can use climatology reliably as a predictive science where GW is concerned. We can't do that at this time though. Unfortunately its painfully obvious that you're too uninformed about GW to recognize that basic fact though. You'd rather just ignorantly spew, which is precisely what you've been doing in this thread post after post after post.
Woah. I guess I don't need to go to a Chinese restaurant now after just making that huge serving of sum dum moon.
TLC: You should stay away from any discussion on climate because you don't have the first clue about it.
M: Having the first clue is one clue ahead of you.
TLC: Yes, we know the climate is changing. Right now we call it global warming and we don't know the why, how, when or what of that process.
M: Actually it's you who don't know but, as I have told you brick over and over again, it makes not the slightest difference about any of that. We are talking about the censorship of data related to the health effects that may occur with climate change not if it changes, when it changes where it changes or how it changes.
TLC😀o you even have the slightest idea that GW is not some monolithic change that affects everything around the globe equally?
M: Stupid argues stupidly a stupid point to stupid to see it's stupidly irrelevant.
YLC: YGW manifests itself regionally. Currently some areas have high rates of change while others encounter very little to no change. We don't understand why that's happening either or if that will change in the years to come. It's even been suggested that what we view as global warming is actually the segue into the next ice age. But you clearly don't know any of that or else you would've dropped your moronic assertions long ago instead of chasing this spectre that's your own imagination of what GW is.
M: Stupid regurgitates more irrelevant stupidity. I could actually know as little as you do about global warming and still have the logic of the case. The case against the suppression of data has nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with disease and which diseases are temperature sensitive. We are talking about how seriously to take climate change if climate change is what we are in for, how seriously we need to think about being prepared, how to assess the cost benefit relationship to potential remediation. It's about having a good scientific understanding of a non static future climate wise. This is completely independent of whether it does get warm, where it gets warm, if it gets cold afterward, when it gets warm or any other of your stupid assertions. You will just have to reconcile the fact that you haven't the intellectual capacity to grasp this fact. You will want to go on and on about climate change instead because you have your foot in your mouth and your mouth takes up the whole inside of your big fat head.
TLC: Sure, the health effects can be estimated - very, very poorly and with a low confidence of those estimations coming to fruition.
M: Who fucking cares about fruition, idiot. The fact is they can be estimated and that is the data that should not be suppressed. That is the data that will tell us how to judge the level of attention and response to that portion of climate change related to disease we will need to factor in to any assessment of how to address change if and when it really hits us.
TLC: About all we can really say about the spread of diseases using our current understanding of GW is that it might happen or it might not. However, if you feel that sloppy estimations are the right thing to do then, by all means, let's follow Moonbeam's advice and fire up the prognostication machine. Let's spew all kinds of predictions based on issues we don't have a decent grasp of yet while we're at it too.
M: Fuck you, dick head. You are a stupid know nothing asshole entitled to your stupid know nothing opinion but just as I have never demanded any form of prognostication in any kind manner or form, I just don't want a fool like yourself determining what science produced by real experts is to be written off as sloppy estimations. I don't want a dingle-berry stuck on the ass hairs of global warming telling me what science I should hear. I want my representatives to have the science that's out there so that as a democratic nation they and we can make up our own minds. You are just to frightened and mistrustful to understand. You have to pretend there's these bad guys out there going to feed you rotten data and a recipe for big foot chicken feet stew.
As far as pooping in their pants, who is the paranoid and irrational one in here claiming conspiracies and corporate influences are behind this supposed "censorship" when they don't have the first bit of evidence to back up that assertion? You're the one fearful of what climate change may bring. You're the one who needs to have this information rushed out to our government right now in that typical sort of fearmongering, Chicken Little-ish manner. But, hey, it's the liberal way to make such premature ejaculations where doom & gloom are concerned. We've certainly seen evidence of that over the last 7 years.
Me afraid? Not based on what you're typing and posting in this forum, pal. It's highly evidence that you're the one shaking in your boots. I have no such fears. My only concern is making premature announcements that are contingent on a climate issue that we still don't understand well enough to make the basic predictions, let alone something as complex as the spread of disease vectors. I'm have no qualms whatsoever to make such predictions when we can use climatology reliably as a predictive science where GW is concerned. We can't do that at this time though. Unfortunately its painfully obvious that you're too uninformed about GW to recognize that basic fact though. You'd rather just ignorantly spew, which is precisely what you've been doing in this thread post after post after post.
Woah. I guess I don't need to go to a Chinese restaurant now after just making that huge serving of sum dum moon.
M: Having the first clue is one clue ahead of you.
TLC: Yes, we know the climate is changing. Right now we call it global warming and we don't know the why, how, when or what of that process.
M: Actually it's you who don't know but, as I have told you brick over and over again, it makes not the slightest difference about any of that. We are talking about the censorship of data related to the health effects that may occur with climate change not if it changes, when it changes where it changes or how it changes.
TLC😀o you even have the slightest idea that GW is not some monolithic change that affects everything around the globe equally?
M: Stupid argues stupidly a stupid point to stupid to see it's stupidly irrelevant.
YLC: YGW manifests itself regionally. Currently some areas have high rates of change while others encounter very little to no change. We don't understand why that's happening either or if that will change in the years to come. It's even been suggested that what we view as global warming is actually the segue into the next ice age. But you clearly don't know any of that or else you would've dropped your moronic assertions long ago instead of chasing this spectre that's your own imagination of what GW is.
M: Stupid regurgitates more irrelevant stupidity. I could actually know as little as you do about global warming and still have the logic of the case. The case against the suppression of data has nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with disease and which diseases are temperature sensitive. We are talking about how seriously to take climate change if climate change is what we are in for, how seriously we need to think about being prepared, how to assess the cost benefit relationship to potential remediation. It's about having a good scientific understanding of a non static future climate wise. This is completely independent of whether it does get warm, where it gets warm, if it gets cold afterward, when it gets warm or any other of your stupid assertions. You will just have to reconcile the fact that you haven't the intellectual capacity to grasp this fact. You will want to go on and on about climate change instead because you have your foot in your mouth and your mouth takes up the whole inside of your big fat head.
TLC: Sure, the health effects can be estimated - very, very poorly and with a low confidence of those estimations coming to fruition.
M: Who fucking cares about fruition, idiot. The fact is they can be estimated and that is the data that should not be suppressed. That is the data that will tell us how to judge the level of attention and response to that portion of climate change related to disease we will need to factor in to any assessment of how to address change if and when it really hits us.
TLC: About all we can really say about the spread of diseases using our current understanding of GW is that it might happen or it might not. However, if you feel that sloppy estimations are the right thing to do then, by all means, let's follow Moonbeam's advice and fire up the prognostication machine. Let's spew all kinds of predictions based on issues we don't have a decent grasp of yet while we're at it too.
M: Fuck you, dick head. You are a stupid know nothing asshole entitled to your stupid know nothing opinion but just as I have never demanded any form of prognostication in any kind manner or form, I just don't want a fool like yourself determining what science produced by real experts is to be written off as sloppy estimations. I don't want a dingle-berry stuck on the ass hairs of global warming telling me what science I should hear. I want my representatives to have the science that's out there so that as a democratic nation they and we can make up our own minds. You are just to frightened and mistrustful to understand. You have to pretend there's these bad guys out there going to feed you rotten data and a recipe for big foot chicken feet stew.
As far as pooping in their pants, who is the paranoid and irrational one in here claiming conspiracies and corporate influences are behind this supposed "censorship" when they don't have the first bit of evidence to back up that assertion? You're the one fearful of what climate change may bring. You're the one who needs to have this information rushed out to our government right now in that typical sort of fearmongering, Chicken Little-ish manner. But, hey, it's the liberal way to make such premature ejaculations where doom & gloom are concerned. We've certainly seen evidence of that over the last 7 years.
Me afraid? Not based on what you're typing and posting in this forum, pal. It's highly evidence that you're the one shaking in your boots. I have no such fears. My only concern is making premature announcements that are contingent on a climate issue that we still don't understand well enough to make the basic predictions, let alone something as complex as the spread of disease vectors. I'm have no qualms whatsoever to make such predictions when we can use climatology reliably as a predictive science where GW is concerned. We can't do that at this time though. Unfortunately its painfully obvious that you're too uninformed about GW to recognize that basic fact though. You'd rather just ignorantly spew, which is precisely what you've been doing in this thread post after post after post.
Woah. I guess I don't need to go to a Chinese restaurant now after just making that huge serving of sum dum moon.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
Well it looks like we're of the same opinion because I feel the exact same way about you.
Don't you have a bigfoot to track down somehwere now? Better get to it.
Yeah but the difference is that I want the scientific data that is currently state of the art made available and you, genius that you are and know it all elitist, are of the opinion that others aren't entitled to make up their own mind, that you in your god-head state, will do that for them. And I ain't been doing much else that tracking down the meandering cluckings of a huge foot in mouth disease chicken. The scientific data suggested by this thread so far tells me that as the debate warms anybody who can think may be buried under tons of chicken manure. I'll pass the info on to the Senate just as soon as I can.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
Looks like we kinda want the same thing. I want the latest state-of-the-art data too. I also want that data based on a solid scientific premise.
That's the difference between us. I want a sound scientific premise to base those forecasts on. You apparently don't give a shit if that basis has any real merit whatsoever. Shove it down everyone's throat anyway. Fearmonger using the barest of evidence.
You go Moonie. You're just so awesome.
:roll:
You enter the debate with preconceived notions and these notions form a bias in your mind. They are bedrock truth to you but in reality they are unexamined assumptions. You enter the debate as a bigot holding unconscious attitudes swayed by irrational emotions. You imagine you know what a sound scientific premise is. You think you can determine scientific merit. That's fine for you but it's not fine for me. To me you are an idiot, a buffoon and and arrogant asshole who imagines that if he just sticks to his stupid story he will convince others who are impressed by conviction. You are a low grade fanatic incapable of analytic thought. You can't follow a logical argument of the simplest kind. I don't want an idiot like you determining what is scientific for me. I want what the scientists have to say. Yes, I don't give a shit if it has any basis or real merit whatsoever. I will decide that for myself and if I do I will be thinking like you. But you're not going to tell me beforehand what to think. I will look with my obviously superior mind, thank you. I am, after all, so awesome.
I'm not interested in giving you anything or holding anything back. I want the scientific data science has produced. I don't care how fucked up you think it is. I don't care how incapable you think I am to reach rational conclusions based on the data. As long as nobody gets between me and the facts presented I will be fine.
Now, let me ask you:
You say you want sound scientific premise to base those forecasts on. The forecasts were about the following:
Direct effects of heat,
Health effects related to extreme weather events.
Air pollution-related health effects.
Allergic diseases,
Water- and food-borne infectious diseases,
Vector-borne and zoonotic diseases,
Food and water scarcity, at least for some populations,
Mental health problems, and
Long-term impacts of chronic diseases and other health effects.
Can you please define for me what you would call valid premises to base ones understanding of these topics on. What is the science involved in each.
Oh, and the first words censored from the report that had been intended to be given were these:
"Scientific evidence supports the view that the earth's climate is changing. A broad array of organizations (federal, state, local, multilateral, faith-based, private and nongovernmental) is working to address climate change. Despite this extensive activity, the public health effects of climate change remain largely unaddressed. CDC considers climate change a serious public health concern.
Climate Change is a Public Health Concern"
And when did the OMB become a scientific institution?
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
I already told you once that if you want information on the spread of disease vectors due to GW for your own edification, then google it. The information is out there.
You keep trying to make this about you when this is about one of our government officials proffering official testimony to Congress. This discussion is not about YOU or YOUR need to know. I don't give a shit what wacky things you personally want to believe in based on scientific models and proclamations that continually fail to correlate with observations. But I am concerned when someone tries to influence government policy based on those same failing models and proclamations.
Now stop being such a dolt about this.
lol TLC is the biggest troll..
My father told me when he was growing up in Korea, he would kill mice by waiting quietly outside the exit of their 'home' and whacking them on the head with a stick each time they poked their head out. He said that mice were so stupid, they would continue poking their head out and getting hit on the head until they finally died.
Reminds me of what is happening to TLC, except he can't actually die, and so instead of the end to the humiliation and shame, it just continues as long as he opens his poor, misinformed, twisted mouth.
My father told me when he was growing up in Korea, he would kill mice by waiting quietly outside the exit of their 'home' and whacking them on the head with a stick each time they poked their head out. He said that mice were so stupid, they would continue poking their head out and getting hit on the head until they finally died.
Reminds me of what is happening to TLC, except he can't actually die, and so instead of the end to the humiliation and shame, it just continues as long as he opens his poor, misinformed, twisted mouth.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
A troll is someone who comes in here and does nothing but spew personal attacks, just like you've done. You haven't addressed a single issue in the subject of this thread. Instead you just make some vapid accusations using anecdotes about your personal life that I don't give two flying fucks about.
If you want to knock down my claims, then produce evidence that our current knowledge of GW mechanisms can be used to make valid predictions about future climate change. If that's the case, it should be easy for any of you cocksure dimwits to do if I'm so misinformed and twisted about it.
C'mon. Feel free to prove me wrong. Prove you're in here for a reason other than just licking moon rocks.
LongTimePCUser
Senior member
A troll is also someone who enters a thread and tries to divert the topic to something completely different.
For example, this was a thread on "The Bush Administration's War on Science...". TLC has shifted the discussion to "global warming mechanism predictions are wrong". That is irrelevant to the original thread and lead to the attacks on TLC as a troll.
For example, this was a thread on "The Bush Administration's War on Science...". TLC has shifted the discussion to "global warming mechanism predictions are wrong". That is irrelevant to the original thread and lead to the attacks on TLC as a troll.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
And another pokes his head in and doesn't bring anything to the table.
I have not diverted this thread. In fact, I mentioned that the topic title was misleading in my initial post...and it is. There is no Bush admin war on science. That claim is nothing more than pure BDS rhetoric, as I already proved when I linked to the bill that Bush recently signed to increase science funding. So even if the ridiculously hyperbolic thread title had the least bit of merit, I already put the kibosh on that claim.
The issue is whether or not this information about the spread of disease vectors was being censored. I claimed it was not being censored, that it was being removed because at this point in time and considering our knowledge of GW mechanisms, it CANNOT be anything but speculation and opinion. Considering our consistent failure to properly model GW there's no possible way anyone can make a valid forecast of how diseases might propagate years down the road.
Now, I put out a challenge for someone in here to prove me wrong. I'm still waiting. If you want to call that challenge a troll and pretend that accusation has any truth to it, help yourself. But frankly you look like a complete idiot and you've done nothing to prove that current science can model GW properly in order to use it as a forecasting tool in the process.
So thanks for playing. You swang. You missed.
Next.
TLC: A troll is someone who comes in here and does nothing but spew personal attacks, just like you've done.
M: On that basis I guess you live under the Golden Gate and stand ankle deep in water.
TLC: You haven't addressed a single issue in the subject of this thread.
M: Oh no that's you again. I guess you have to be stupid to fit under the bridge.
TLC: Instead you just make some vapid accusations using anecdotes about your personal life that I don't give two flying fucks about.
M: I wonder if his dad was also a weatherman in the Army.
TLC: If you want to knock down my claims, then produce evidence that our current knowledge of GW mechanisms can be used to make valid predictions about future climate change. If that's the case, it should be easy for any of you cocksure dimwits to do if I'm so misinformed and twisted about it.
M: The moron sticks to his story. I have never affirmed or denied your point. I only pointed out that it has nothing to do with anything about this thread.
TLC: C'mon. Feel free to prove me wrong. Prove you're in here for a reason other than just licking moon rocks.
M: Stupidly you see only a limited repertoire of possibilities. I think anybody can see your a fool without necessarily supporting me.
M: On that basis I guess you live under the Golden Gate and stand ankle deep in water.
TLC: You haven't addressed a single issue in the subject of this thread.
M: Oh no that's you again. I guess you have to be stupid to fit under the bridge.
TLC: Instead you just make some vapid accusations using anecdotes about your personal life that I don't give two flying fucks about.
M: I wonder if his dad was also a weatherman in the Army.
TLC: If you want to knock down my claims, then produce evidence that our current knowledge of GW mechanisms can be used to make valid predictions about future climate change. If that's the case, it should be easy for any of you cocksure dimwits to do if I'm so misinformed and twisted about it.
M: The moron sticks to his story. I have never affirmed or denied your point. I only pointed out that it has nothing to do with anything about this thread.
TLC: C'mon. Feel free to prove me wrong. Prove you're in here for a reason other than just licking moon rocks.
M: Stupidly you see only a limited repertoire of possibilities. I think anybody can see your a fool without necessarily supporting me.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
