|
Post by bigapplebucky on Dec 17, 2015 18:02:17 GMT -5
The root cause of denialism:
|
|
|
Post by buckybasser on Dec 18, 2015 1:28:02 GMT -5
As a proud denier until the day the rising waters of Global Warming take me under & capture my very last breath...
For me it is simply the timeline.
This is accurate to the second of the planet in one day...
Humans around 1 minute and 17 seconds of the day - and we will change the planet?
Yeah - tell me more!
>O
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Dec 18, 2015 10:13:46 GMT -5
As a proud denier until the day the rising waters of Global Warming take me under & capture my very last breath...
For me it is simply the timeline.
This is accurate to the second of the planet in one day...
Humans around 1 minute and 17 seconds of the day - and we will change the planet?
Yeah - tell me more!
>O
So, basically you never took a chem class, right? I mean by that logic, people can't fly, so all those airline schedules are just a hoax, lol.
|
|
|
Post by buckybasser on Dec 18, 2015 18:45:22 GMT -5
Indeed OB - I took a year of Chemistry at perhaps the same location you did - the beautiful twin cities of Urbana-Champaign!
Global Warming is perhaps the most egomaniacal policy of the radical left, but also is the hottest vehicle to implement Anti-Capitalist policies on a planetary scale.
The planet is never at stake and never will be at stake. Warming or cooling trends can never be established - it is simply impossible given the incredible time frames.
The earth is from 4.5 - 5 billion years old. There has been some form of life here for almost that long.
Millions upon millions of years of violent planetary eruptions, asteroid impacts, tectonic plate & continental shifts, rising & falling seas, and entire societies of various reptiles, amphibians and mammals both developing, advancing and dying away. Around 3 billion years ago, oxygen is thought to have acted like a poison to many life forms on the planet during that time.
To the globe, one million years of hard temperature data, verified at thousands of world-wide stations and finally audited by top accounting firms would mean absolutely nothing.
The earth operates on such an incredible scale that no human being can ever hope to reach even a rudimentary understanding of planetary trends.
Global Warming is just a hoax to advance liberalism and further indoctrinate a naïve public who wants to help save the planet.
>O
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Dec 18, 2015 23:00:23 GMT -5
Indeed OB - I took a year of Chemistry at perhaps the same location you did - the beautiful twin cities of Urbana-Champaign! :)
Global Warming is perhaps the most egomaniacal policy of the radical left, but also is the hottest vehicle to implement Anti-Capitalist policies on a planetary scale.
The planet is never at stake and never will be at stake. Warming or cooling trends can never be established - it is simply impossible given the incredible time frames.
The earth is from 4.5 - 5 billion years old. There has been some form of life here for almost that long.
Millions upon millions of years of violent planetary eruptions, asteroid impacts, tectonic plate & continental shifts, rising & falling seas, and entire societies of various reptiles, amphibians and mammals both developing, advancing and dying away. Around 3 billion years ago, oxygen is thought to have acted like a poison to many life forms on the planet during that time.
To the globe, one million years of hard temperature data, verified at thousands of world-wide stations and finally audited by top accounting firms would mean absolutely nothing.
The earth operates on such an incredible scale that no human being can ever hope to reach even a rudimentary understanding of planetary trends.
Global Warming is just a hoax to advance liberalism and further indoctrinate a naïve public who wants to help save the planet.
>O
Wow, do you actually believe all that BS? "Warming or cooling trends can never be established - it is simply impossible given the incredible time frames." That's right up there with the arguments against an Earth older than 6,000 years and evolution. You can't seriously believe this, can you?
You believe that the global warming debate is about destroying capitalism? Here's a list of the 34 largest solar power companies in the world: link.
How about this: "ST. LOUIS, Jan. 13, 2014 /PRNewswire/ -- In a move demonstrating Ameren Missouri's continued commitment to renewable and diverse sources of energy, the company is announcing today a multi-million-dollar project to build the state's largest investor-owned solar energy center." link What part of "investor-owned" is "anti-capitalist"? In fact, you can trade stocks in solar power companies yourself: link Are stock markets also "anti-capitalist"?
I could do the same with every kind of alternative energy. Frankly, finding cheap, dependable alternative fuels not only would be a huge boost to free-market economies, but would undercut the power of the anti-capitalist cartels that control fossil fuels today. How in the name of Milton Friedman could anyone be against that? Clearly, you need to do a lot more serious thinking, rather that falling back on shopworn ideological shortcuts on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by muddydove on Dec 19, 2015 12:02:54 GMT -5
As Obama said in his latest press conference, "The Republican Party is the only political party on earth right now denying Climate Change. They're strictly outliers." Will the GOP leaders ever come to grips with that?
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Dec 19, 2015 17:03:16 GMT -5
"A massive new study by 16 authors has calculated just how much ice the Greenland ice sheet has lost since the year 1900. And the number, says the paper just out in the journal Nature, is astounding: 9,103 gigatons (a gigaton is a billion metric tons). That’s over 9 trillion tons in total. And moreover, the rate of loss has been increasing, the research finds, with a doubling of annual loss in the period 2003 to 2010 compared with what it was throughout the 20th century...
"The new research also suggests that Greenland was a major player in the global sea level budget throughout the last century, and accounts for much sea level rise that the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had previously not attributed to the Greenland. If the estimate of 9,103 gigatons of ice loss in the last 110 years is correct, then Greenland would have contributed about 2.5 centimeters of sea level rise over the period — roughly an inch. That may not sound like much, but it’s enough water to submerge the entire U.S. interstate highway system 98 feet deep — and to do so 63 times over, says Jason Box, a professor with the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland. Taken in total, a melting of the entire Greenland ice sheet would lead to roughly 20 feet of sea level rise." link
Response of the scientific community: This is a serious problem; we should try to fix it.
Response of the denialist community:
|
|
|
Post by buckybasser on Dec 19, 2015 21:32:00 GMT -5
Correction - here is a more fun response of the denialist community...
Liberal # 1 "Did you hear the scientists say that Greenland is melting!?"
Liberal # 2 "No - how awful! Did you hear that a mean & nasty Chupacabra was planning to attack solar panels & windmills!?"
Liberal #1 "Oh no - we're doomed Scooby - doomed I say!"
Denier # 1 "I would suggest that doing nothing about Greenland and the Chupacabra is the best response - wholesale inaction is always 100% better than implementing anything liberal."
And so the world ends...
>O
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Dec 20, 2015 0:09:59 GMT -5
Correction - here is a more fun response of the denialist community...
Liberal # 1 "Did you hear the scientists say that Greenland is melting!?"
Liberal # 2 "No - how awful! Did you hear that a mean & nasty Chupacabra was planning to attack solar panels & windmills!?"
Liberal #1 "Oh no - we're doomed Scooby - doomed I say!"
Denier # 1 "I would suggest that doing nothing about Greenland and the Chupacabra is the best response - wholesale inaction is always 100% better than implementing anything liberal."
And so the world ends... :)
Whatever controlled substance you're taking--put it down STAT! ;-)
|
|
|
Post by bigapplebucky on Jan 5, 2016 10:01:46 GMT -5
Koko, the gorrilla, has an opinion.
|
|
|
Post by leftylarry on Jan 5, 2016 15:32:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Leftylarry on Jan 5, 2016 15:41:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by leftylarry on Jan 5, 2016 15:42:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by brisco0317 on Jan 5, 2016 15:43:59 GMT -5
As Obama said in his latest press conference, "The Republican Party is the only political party on earth right now denying Climate Change. They're strictly outliers." Will the GOP leaders ever come to grips with that? Show me the data. There are so many holes in the analysis, who knows what to believe?
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jan 5, 2016 17:20:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jan 5, 2016 17:21:37 GMT -5
As Obama said in his latest press conference, "The Republican Party is the only political party on earth right now denying Climate Change. They're strictly outliers." Will the GOP leaders ever come to grips with that? Show me the data. There are so many holes in the analysis, who knows what to believe? People who actually have followed the science know just what to believe. Those who get their news from Fox and Breitbart simply are compounding their ignorance. Your choice.
|
|
|
Post by brisco0317 on Jan 6, 2016 8:22:29 GMT -5
Show me the data. There are so many holes in the analysis, who knows what to believe? People who actually have followed the science know just what to believe. Those who get their news from Fox and Breitbart simply are compounding their ignorance. Your choice. I do not rely on those sources for my news - I READ! But thank you for making incorrect assumptions that are insulting. I am also a degreed engineer so I can fully understand science and data analysis. Through my research, there is a lot of data manipulation that makes no intuitive sense. But should I just ignore what doesn't make sense and take things on faith?
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jan 6, 2016 8:35:58 GMT -5
I do not rely on those sources for my news - I READ! But thank you for making incorrect assumptions that are insulting. I am also a degreed engineer so I can fully understand science and data analysis. Through my research, there is a lot of data manipulation that makes no intuitive sense. But should I just ignore what doesn't make sense and take things on faith? I actually was yanking the chain of the guy who had just posted from Fox and Breitbart. Sorry for any confusion. As for data manipulation: www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/02/10/global_warming_adjusting_temperature_measurements.html.
|
|
|
Post by jollyroger on Jan 6, 2016 11:28:20 GMT -5
Do you realize that you criticize other people's sources as being biased and then the majority of your sources are along the lines of the Washington Post or Slate? Classic.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jan 6, 2016 12:00:44 GMT -5
Do you realize that you criticize other people's sources as being biased and then the majority of your sources are along the lines of the Washington Post or Slate? Classic. You mean actual NEWS sources, rather than opinion blogs? Yes, yes I do realize that.
|
|
|
Post by jollyroger on Jan 6, 2016 12:05:42 GMT -5
Do you realize that you criticize other people's sources as being biased and then the majority of your sources are along the lines of the Washington Post or Slate? Classic. You mean actual NEWS sources, rather than opinion blogs? Yes, yes I do realize that. I mean BIASED news sources rather than an opinion blog you criticized of mine that cited 11 different outside sources including the NY Times and NBC. That's what I mean.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jan 6, 2016 12:10:12 GMT -5
I mean BIASED news sources rather than an opinion blog you criticized of mine that cited 11 different outside sources including the NY Times and NBC. That's what I mean. Which post was it that you describe above?
|
|
|
Post by jollyroger on Jan 6, 2016 12:15:04 GMT -5
I mean BIASED news sources rather than an opinion blog you criticized of mine that cited 11 different outside sources including the NY Times and NBC. That's what I mean. Which post was it that you describe above? It was my last activity on this site. You can find it if you really want to. When you discredited a blog I posted because you didn't like the author's background, but failed to notice that he cited 11 different sources in the blog, I decided to step away from this disingenuous shitshow. I came back for curiosity sake, and just saw that you're ripping on someone else's source, while following up with a link from Slate. Honest question, are you claiming that the Washington Post and Slate aren't slanted in one direction?
|
|
|
Post by leftylarry on Jan 6, 2016 12:37:29 GMT -5
Which post was it that you describe above? It was my last activity on this site. You can find it if you really want to. When you discredited a blog I posted because you didn't like the author's background, but failed to notice that he cited 11 different sources in the blog, I decided to step away from this disingenuous shitshow. I came back for curiosity sake, and just saw that you're ripping on someone else's source, while following up with a link from Slate. Honest question, are you claiming that the Washington Post and Slate aren't slanted in one direction? They don't care that it's slanted in one direction or not, they just want to talk, cite LEFTWING sources and then say your sources have no validity because they aren't leftwing.
It's a self-fulfilling prophesy game.
Look, we lefties think this: Yadaa yadda Yadda. AND nothing you say has any validity unless your source is leftwing or it FULLY agrees with our point of view.
It's why, I see this ending badly for ALL of us, they have the upper hand and we cannot live with their future goals, it's why they want to disarm us.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jan 6, 2016 13:45:36 GMT -5
Which post was it that you describe above? It was my last activity on this site. You can find it if you really want to. When you discredited a blog I posted because you didn't like the author's background, but failed to notice that he cited 11 different sources in the blog, I decided to step away from this disingenuous shitshow. I came back for curiosity sake, and just saw that you're ripping on someone else's source, while following up with a link from Slate. Honest question, are you claiming that the Washington Post and Slate aren't slanted in one direction? You mean the one where I replied: "Citing an author whose terrorism "credentials" come from his history of writing about "wasteful municipal spending, school choice, the drug war and abuse of police authority...state and federal transportation and energy spending...[and] Proposition 19 to legalize marijuana" does not raise your level of credibility on this issue." linkYou actually cited two articles in that thread. The first was from Charlie Savage, an experienced and well-regarded national security reporter for the NYT. Go back to that thread and you'll see I gave a very respectful reply to that post, focusing on the Fourth Amendment issues. However, you then decided to support your view with an opinion piece from a guy who has zero background on national security at all, and I did indeed note that this source was not credible. Because he isn't. His bio ends this way: "Before becoming part of the massive libertarian media establishment, Shackford once weighed in on much more important matters as a show recapper at Television Without Pity. There, his dislike of Clay Aiken and his disappointment with the writing on Firefly earned him the enmity of the entire Internet. All of it." That's not a good source for a major national security issue. You should have stayed with Savage. The WP virtually never has a story about any controversy--international, national, or local--in which it doesn't present views from both sides (more if there are more). Indeed, letter writers to the paper often criticize it for being "even-handed" even with people presenting clearly whacky points of view. If you look at their list of op-ed writers you quickly find that it's ideologically more diverse than any other news source, from AEI's Marc Thiessen on the far right to Harold Meyerson on the far left, with every shade of opinion in between. link Normally, I don't read/cite Slate; I don't regard it as a news source because it's an opinion site. In this case, I linked to that particular piece only because it was the clearest--i.e. least jargony--explanation of what the data adjustment involved that I could find. And the author is himself an astronomer, so...
|
|
|
Post by jollyroger on Jan 6, 2016 14:02:06 GMT -5
Again, the blog you tried to discredit because of the author includes 11 links including the NY Times, Yahoo and NBC, among others. And per usual, you aren't addressing the broader point. Why do you continue to discredit other people's sources yet link to mostly slanted sources yourself? The fact that you don't realize the Washington Post is the left wing publication in DC and maybe don't know the Washington Times is the right wing publication is interesting, to say the least. It's as basic as knowing the NY Times slants to the left in NY and the NY Post slants to the right. You not only cherrypick your sources, but you have a history of cherrypicking parts of posts and claiming victory while avoiding a lot of the content. Not sure which is more disingenuous.
|
|
|
Post by brisco0317 on Jan 6, 2016 16:20:44 GMT -5
Which post was it that you describe above? It was my last activity on this site. You can find it if you really want to. When you discredited a blog I posted because you didn't like the author's background, but failed to notice that he cited 11 different sources in the blog, I decided to step away from this disingenuous shitshow. I came back for curiosity sake, and just saw that you're ripping on someone else's source, while following up with a link from Slate. Honest question, are you claiming that the Washington Post and Slate aren't slanted in one direction? This is SOP jollyroger - and I am totally with you in that it is a disingenuous shitshow. They can't offer any counter to the actual CONTENT of the article you provided so they attack the messenger. I see it ALL THE TIME. This is actually part of a liberal playbook that is out there - I can find and send you the link if you'd like.
|
|
|
Post by brisco0317 on Jan 6, 2016 16:22:08 GMT -5
Again, the blog you tried to discredit because of the author includes 11 links including the NY Times, Yahoo and NBC, among others. And per usual, you aren't addressing the broader point. Why do you continue to discredit other people's sources yet link to mostly slanted sources yourself? The fact that you don't realize the Washington Post is the left wing publication in DC and maybe don't know the Washington Times is the right wing publication is interesting, to say the least. It's as basic as knowing the NY Times slants to the left in NY and the NY Post slants to the right. You not only cherrypick your sources, but you have a history of cherrypicking parts of posts and claiming victory while avoiding a lot of the content. Not sure which is more disingenuous. +1 jollyroger, you totally nailed it.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jan 6, 2016 16:44:52 GMT -5
Again, the blog you tried to discredit because of the author includes 11 links including the NY Times, Yahoo and NBC, among others. And per usual, you aren't addressing the broader point. Why do you continue to discredit other people's sources yet link to mostly slanted sources yourself? The fact that you don't realize the Washington Post is the left wing publication in DC and maybe don't know the Washington Times is the right wing publication is interesting, to say the least. It's as basic as knowing the NY Times slants to the left in NY and the NY Post slants to the right. You not only cherrypick your sources, but you have a history of cherrypicking parts of posts and claiming victory while avoiding a lot of the content. Not sure which is more disingenuous. Well, the fact that he links to other sources is pretty meaningless because the piece is just an opinion piece. And the major quotation he cites is from Snowden's leading journalistic enabler. There's no new information in that article at all, unlike the one from Savage. The WP is not "the left-wing publication" in DC. It's the ONLY real newspaper here. It was the right-of-center newspaper until the much more lefty Star went out of business, and on many issues it hardly could be called liberal. For example, editorially it has weighed in often on the need for deficit reduction, even during the Great Recession, based on the views of the economic think tank it cites most often, the center-right Peterson Foundation.* It cites the same source in calling for Social Security and Medicare cuts. Just how "left-wing" is that? Well, I guess on the extreme right there is the Washington Times, the Moonie paper, but no one takes that seriously since Moon retook control from his son, who tried to turn it into a real newspaper. The main reason why I link to news articles from the WP is completely pragmatic: as a print subscriber I get unlimited access to the website. Alas, the NYT gives me only 10 free views per month, and the Wall Street Journal none. So, since I feel an obligation to let readers know what events I'm commenting on in a thread, I usually reference a story from the WP. This isn't brain surgery, just simple (personal) economics. Now, when are you actually going to defend citing a totally unqualified blogger in that national security debate? ;-) *From the front page of the Peterson Foundation's website: "America’s growing long-term debt affects economic growth and opportunities for future generations. It’s not a political or partisan issue – it’s simple math. With nearly 76 million baby boomers retiring and living much longer, combined with a highly inefficient healthcare system, and a tax code that fails to generate sufficient revenues, America finds itself with a very risky long-term fiscal outlook."
|
|
|
Post by Jon on Jan 11, 2016 15:44:16 GMT -5
OB, you are even older than your years. You still think the only valid source of real news is old newspapers? That is hilarious---have you heard of the internet?
Not only are the WP and NYT heavily slanted to the left---except to someone who believes anything right of Communist Party line is right wing--- they, along with almost all other old media, have totally abandoned traditional journalistic ethics. The frequently just lie, but then that is not a problem for you.
I shudder to think how you might define "qualified". Approved by the DNC?
|
|