RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science

RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

philosophy -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (6/30/2009 4:17:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Use of the very term "deny" and "denier" marks you as a member of the faithful. Any and all arguments you make after that fact may be in the form and color of scientific inquiry, but in reality is based on faith and emotion, not fact and logic. ...that's a pretty weird argument Firm. Imagine someone says the Holocaust never happens. So i decide to call him a Holocaust denier. Does that mean that i have strayed from the path of fact and logic? Or am i merely accurately describing someone? Climate change is happening. There seems a pretty big chunk of evidence that one of the factors driving this is human activity. Those who deny the existence of that evidence, or indeed deny that the climate is changing at all are deniers.......me pointing that out isn't a sudden leap into faith. I've answered this before, philo. Firm ...ok, dump the Holocaust Denial analogy....... From the post you linked to.... "You - and others who use the term - are attempting nothing other than to intimidate people to stop them from performing real science or to invalidate actual scientific findings, due to political and ideological considerations." ......this goes both ways. There is work out there that points to a human factor in climate change. It's one thing to be skeptical of the conclusions drawn from the science, but when you describe those who have come to a different conclusion to you as a "member of the faithful. Any and all arguments [made] after that fact may be in the form and color of scientific inquiry, but in reality [are] based on faith and emotion, not fact and logic." then you're doing exactly what you railed against in your linked post. Skepticism is one thing........what you're suggesting is a little beyond that and wandering into 'ifyoubelievethathumanshaveanimpactonclimatethenyouarearanksimpletonawwwwpoorfrailemotionallydrivenintellectperson' territory.

DomKen -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (6/30/2009 4:21:31 PM)
Your entire post is fallacious but I only have time right niow to deal with a single part. quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY How will higher temperatures materially impoverish human civilization, in the long term? Is there any possibilities that it will also strengthen it? Ever read or hear about a book called "Guns Germs and Steel"? A basic tenet of the book and an undisputed fact is our material culture is built on a very successful temperate climate agriculture. If the planet warms the temperate zones will shift toward the poles. Now examine a map and you'll notice that if th temperate zones shift poleward we will lose most of the arable land. If you also examine the elevation above sea level of where most people live and compare it to the expected sea level at the end of this century you will also find that during the next century it is probable that not only will we have to under go an upheaval due to loss of arable land we will also be facing another crisis as people leave homes as they fall below sea level. So higher temperatures will destroy massive amounts of infrastructure, cause a large percentage of the population to have to seek new places to live and fundamentally change where our food comes from as well as how much we can produce. That sounds like a material impoverishment of the human civilization to me.

FirmhandKY -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (6/30/2009 5:07:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: Firmhandky I've answered this before, philo. ...ok, dump the Holocaust Denial analogy....... From the post you linked to.... "You - and others who use the term - are attempting nothing other than to intimidate people to stop them from performing real science or to invalidate actual scientific findings, due to political and ideological considerations." ......this goes both ways. There is work out there that points to a human factor in climate change. It's one thing to be skeptical of the conclusions drawn from the science, but when you describe those who have come to a different conclusion to you as a "member of the faithful. Any and all arguments [made] after that fact may be in the form and color of scientific inquiry, but in reality [are] based on faith and emotion, not fact and logic." then you're doing exactly what you railed against in your linked post. Skepticism is one thing........what you're suggesting is a little beyond that and wandering into 'if you believe that humans have an impact on climate then you are a rank simpleton awwww poor frail emotionally driven intellect person' territory. I reserve my condemnation and contempt for the people who argue for AGW from an ideological perspective, not at people who simply believe that current scientific evidence seems to support the theory of AGW. At times, it isn't always easy to distinguish the difference, but I've found the use of the term and concept of "deny" or "deniers" an excellent pointer. Since I know it's impossible to read everything that any individual may have posted on a specific subject, or remember it if they can, I'll reiterate a few points of what I believe the science supports: 1. Tentatively, the preponderance of the evidence seems to support a gentle rise in average global temperature over the past few decades. 2. Mankind's industry and technology have increased the amount of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere. A non-scientific observation that I make is: 3. There is a strong political and ideological component to both sides of the argument about whether or not the increase recently of human released (read: returned to the biosphere) CO2 may or may not effect the environment. I think pretty much everything is open to discussion, and when people start claim to know "the truth", I tend to take the opposite point of view, if for no other reason than I'm a contary son-of-a-bitch. Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (6/30/2009 5:15:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Your entire post is fallacious but I only have time right niow to deal with a single part. quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY How will higher temperatures materially impoverish human civilization, in the long term? Is there any possibilities that it will also strengthen it? Ever read or hear about a book called "Guns Germs and Steel"? A basic tenet of the book and an undisputed fact is our material culture is built on a very successful temperate climate agriculture. If the planet warms the temperate zones will shift toward the poles. Now examine a map and you'll notice that if th temperate zones shift poleward we will lose most of the arable land. If you also examine the elevation above sea level of where most people live and compare it to the expected sea level at the end of this century you will also find that during the next century it is probable that not only will we have to under go an upheaval due to loss of arable land we will also be facing another crisis as people leave homes as they fall below sea level. So higher temperatures will destroy massive amounts of infrastructure, cause a large percentage of the population to have to seek new places to live and fundamentally change where our food comes from as well as how much we can produce. That sounds like a material impoverishment of the human civilization to me. You have not provided ANY "undisputed fact"'s at all. In fact, this post does nothing other than solidify the "fact" that you are in the "church" side of AGW. Assuming any of your "facts" about the physical effects of GW (and yes, I've read Guns, Germs, and Steel, and even have a copy of it, and the video series, thank you), then your conclusions are also open to discussion. I had a fourth point in my above post to philosophy, but I deleted it prior to posting as too inflammatory, but you have convinced me that it is appropriate now: 4. Many people on the "pro-AGW" side of the discussion resort to fear-mongering and exaggeration in order to advance public support (through fear) of their side's position. Firm

HatesParisHilton -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (6/30/2009 5:59:22 PM)
RE "Alinsky rules 5 and 11" the rules apply but NOT in the way you imply (or would naturally be inferred), FHKY sharkie. Look at your own icon. You are using semiotics to make a staement there, right down to the 3 blues and two variants of greys used to create that image of that shark. The fact that the image gets associated with a storyline, and in fact a GENRE of storylines, and within the pst ten years, now a SUBGENRE of storylines, IS according to any ad agency, salient short-speak. It's self branding like they do for politicians or people with a political dream to follow/axe to grind ( which in politics and religion - now joined at the hip - are both opposing faces on the same coin). These dreams and axes have represented work for MY people, the copywriters, sloganeers, illustrators and designers, since the fucking Roman Empire, and the GOP and all it's splinter groups spent billions every year in their own country and abroad on "look, sound, slogan" methods of being the winning Playah. however... One of the complaints against political parties that espouse POV's such as Sanity's is that they never exhibit charisma or real humour anymore. art and product can make that happen. they DO make that happen. for BIG money. every day. And have done so, for trillions times trillions of dollars, around the world, in the last 50 years alone. That is not radical, not even by Saul's yardstick. It is one of the most conservative viewpoints you will find in an artist. How many artists do you know, by the way, pro enough to still be collecting royalties from one of the top 5 media congloms over 15 years after they did less than a month of work? I don't joke about royalties.

FirmhandKY -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (6/30/2009 7:04:48 PM)
HPH, Symbols are non-verbal communications. They can enhance understanding, or be used to bypass the more rational centers of the human animal and strike at the emotional center. Words are symbols as well. Painting a negative symbolism onto someone so that the logic and meaning of their words and communications are discounted is a tactic used by those in which logic and rational discussion hold lesser value than emotional content, or - more likely - rational discussion and logical thought will not achieve their objective. Firm

DomKen -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (6/30/2009 8:39:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Your entire post is fallacious but I only have time right niow to deal with a single part. quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY How will higher temperatures materially impoverish human civilization, in the long term? Is there any possibilities that it will also strengthen it? Ever read or hear about a book called "Guns Germs and Steel"? A basic tenet of the book and an undisputed fact is our material culture is built on a very successful temperate climate agriculture. If the planet warms the temperate zones will shift toward the poles. Now examine a map and you'll notice that if th temperate zones shift poleward we will lose most of the arable land. If you also examine the elevation above sea level of where most people live and compare it to the expected sea level at the end of this century you will also find that during the next century it is probable that not only will we have to under go an upheaval due to loss of arable land we will also be facing another crisis as people leave homes as they fall below sea level. So higher temperatures will destroy massive amounts of infrastructure, cause a large percentage of the population to have to seek new places to live and fundamentally change where our food comes from as well as how much we can produce. That sounds like a material impoverishment of the human civilization to me. You have not provided ANY "undisputed fact"'s at all. In fact, this post does nothing other than solidify the "fact" that you are in the "church" side of AGW. Assuming any of your "facts" about the physical effects of GW (and yes, I've read Guns, Germs, and Steel, and even have a copy of it, and the video series, thank you), then your conclusions are also open to discussion. I had a fourth point in my above post to philosophy, but I deleted it prior to posting as too inflammatory, but you have convinced me that it is appropriate now: 4. Many people on the "pro-AGW" side of the discussion resort to fear-mongering and exaggeration in order to advance public support (through fear) of their side's position. Firm You asked a question, this specific question: quote: How will higher temperatures materially impoverish human civilization, in the long term? I responded by describing ways higher temperatures will be bad for human civilization. Rather than respond in a substantive manner you accuse me of 'fear mongering and exageration.' Now what is an exageration in my post? Does our civilization rely on temperate zone plants and animals? Yes. Will a global increase in temperature mean those crops will have to be grown closer to the poles than at present? Yes. Is there less land as you move poleward from the present temperate zone? Yes. Does much of the human population of the world live near sea level? Yes. If the sea level rises will many of those people or their descendants be displaced? Yes. Do those areas likely to be inundated contain a significant amount of infrastructure? Yes. Will that infrastructure be lost if the land it rests on is submerged? Yes. As to to your claim of fear mongering you asked for what might happen to human civilization as a result of GW. I answered your question. That isn't fear mongering. So the facts are undisputed and I neither exagerated not attempted to cause fear.

DomKen -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (6/30/2009 8:46:54 PM)
Now to deal with rest of this. quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen A single year is weather, a century of weather is climate. GW is about climate. Perhaps I was pointing out that maybe your yardstick for measurement is a bit too small? In geological terms, a century is a heartbeat. Climate is not a geologic process nor is it stable in geologic time frames. Attempting to discuss climate in geological time frames is deeply erroroneous. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen At 380 ppm CO2 is 36% more of the atmosphere than it was in 1750. uhhh .... no, not really. For the ease of discussion, let's grant that there has been a doubling of atmospheric CO2 since 1750. If CO2 made up 0.025% of the atmosphere at that time, and now makes up 0.050%, then the amount of CO2 has gone up 100%, but that doesn't mean that 100% of the atmosphere is now made up of Co2 or - "that CO2 is 100% more of the atmosphere" (or 36%, even). Math again? This is really very simple. In 1750 the air contained 280ppm and today it contains more than 380. 380 is roughly a 36% increase (100/280). Therefore 36% more of the atmosphere is CO2 than in 1750. I never claimed it makes up 36% of the atmosphere but as is clearly stated 36% more than in 1750. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I do see and note for my own amusement that your supposed open mind can't actually deal with presented facts but chooses to make ad hominen attacks against my character instead. Now why would you, after your many claims of rationality and logic, resort to such a tactic? I understand my own prejudices and biases most of the time, I think, and even admit to them. I try to use science and the scientific method to keep myself honest. Some people don't seem to believe that they have biases and prejudices, and twist the form of science to support their belief structure. Firm This makes no sense as a response to the quoted material. It could be a back handed attempt to admit your error without directly admitting it and it could be yet another ad hominen swipe but mostly it is too vague to be understood.

DemonKia -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (6/30/2009 9:17:43 PM)
Yeah, it's an opinion column, & he feels strongly about the subject. Hyperbole is part of writing opinion columns. I stuck to quoting his review of the data, as that was what was pertinent to the discussion. & I'm still far more impressed with Krugman's handle on science than with yours, even after reading thru the rest of the thread. Sounds like you should start a thread about Global Climate Change as religious belief . . . . . That's quite a hysterical claim made, that last paragraph. Talk about hyperbole, you definitely trumped Krugman in that department. How does that help your case? quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Paul Krugman's words on Global Warming: quote: the deniers ... a form of treason ... the irresponsibility and immorality ... who show no sign of being interested in the truth ... Still, is it fair to call climate denial a form of treason? Isn’t it politics as usual? Yes, it is — and that’s why it’s unforgivable. Blasphemers and heretics of the Global Warming denomination of the Liberal One True Religion to be tortured and executed. Film at 10 ... [:)] Firm

HatesParisHilton -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (6/30/2009 9:29:21 PM)
"Painting a negative symbolism onto someone so that the logic and meaning of their words and communications are discounted is a tactic used by those in which logic and rational discussion hold lesser value than emotional content, or - more likely - rational discussion and logical thought will not achieve their objective. " are insulting my intelligence, satirizing, indulging in unadulterated bullshit for shits or giggles, or do you REALLY believe that? Then again, realistically, if YOU are the shit stirrer and using me (conveniently) to hide YOR shitstirring, BASED on Saul's rules as you provided, how would we ever KNOW?

FirmhandKY -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (6/30/2009 9:35:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DemonKia That's quite a hysterical claim made, that last paragraph. Talk about hyperbole, you definitely trumped Krugman in that department. How does that help your case? quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Paul Krugman's words on Global Warming: quote: the deniers ... a form of treason ... the irresponsibility and immorality ... who show no sign of being interested in the truth ... Still, is it fair to call climate denial a form of treason? Isn’t it politics as usual? Yes, it is — and that’s why it’s unforgivable. Blasphemers and heretics of the Global Warming denomination of the Liberal One True Religion to be tortured and executed. Film at 10 ... [:)] Firm I guess you have a problem understanding sarcasm, then. That's what I wrote. That's not what Krugman wrote. He's defining skepticism and political dissent as treason. How is treason normally punished? And you seem to be perfectly fine with this. What was it that the left said during Bush's time as President? "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." Seems that was only another example of form over substance ... statements that others should follow and honor, but to which you and other "right thinkers" are not to be held to. Hmmm ... that is rule 4. I guess Krugman is reading the same book. Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (6/30/2009 9:41:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Now to deal with rest of this. quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen A single year is weather, a century of weather is climate. GW is about climate. Perhaps I was pointing out that maybe your yardstick for measurement is a bit too small? In geological terms, a century is a heartbeat. Climate is not a geologic process nor is it stable in geologic time frames. Attempting to discuss climate in geological time frames is deeply erroroneous. * IPCC Third Assessment Report "Climate Change 2001" Working Group I: The Scientific Basis Appendix I - Glossary Climate Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the "average weather", or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). These quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation, and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system. * ... as I said in the beginning, perhaps choosing your timeframe is more based on what you need in order to "prove" your point, than to try to reach a realistic understanding. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Math again? This is really very simple. In 1750 the air contained 280ppm and today it contains more than 380. 380 is roughly a 36% increase (100/280). Therefore 36% more of the atmosphere is CO2 than in 1750. I never claimed it makes up 36% of the atmosphere but as is clearly stated 36% more than in 1750. You need to read closely what you have written yet again. If you still believe what you have written, you might ask someone with which you have a more ideological simpatico understanding in other issues about it, as I believe it's a waste of time to attempt to further correct your error on this specific issue. As I said ... the form, but not the substance of science. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Firmhandky I understand my own prejudices and biases most of the time, I think, and even admit to them. I try to use science and the scientific method to keep myself honest. Some people don't seem to believe that they have biases and prejudices, and twist the form of science to support their belief structure. This makes no sense as a response to the quoted material. It could be a back handed attempt to admit your error without directly admitting it and it could be yet another ad hominen swipe but mostly it is too vague to be understood. Plainly, then: No amount of facts or discussion will ever change your mind about this issue, as it is one of your core beliefs, and therefore not subject to rational discussion, or amenable to facts that run contrary to your belief. In direct reference to the other post of yours about the horrors of AGW, the reason I won't even address them to you is that it's flatly a waste of time. You are not interested in the discussion, other than as a venue to preach your beliefs and belittle your opponents. Which is what I've now allowed you to demonstrate several times. Firm

BamaD -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (6/30/2009 9:50:11 PM)
As Al Gore says, if we don't do something to stop global warming now in ten years you will be able to moor a boat at the top of the Washington Monument. Problem is he has been saying that since 1988. Also those with knowlege of history might note that this is not the first period of global warming we have had. In the 11th and 12th centuries it was possible to grow wheat in Greenland. In case you are unaware of this nobody had suvs then. Do to the increase in food the world population tripled. Possibly the greatest danger to global could be overpopulation!

FirmhandKY -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (6/30/2009 9:57:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HatesParisHilton quote: ORIGINAL: Firmhandky Painting a negative symbolism onto someone so that the logic and meaning of their words and communications are discounted is a tactic used by those in which logic and rational discussion hold lesser value than emotional content, or - more likely - rational discussion and logical thought will not achieve their objective. are insulting my intelligence, satirizing, indulging in unadulterated bullshit for shits or giggles, or do you REALLY believe that? If you don't understand what I wrote, quit trying to display your eruditeness and ask for clarification and I'll reciprocate with plain and simple words. quote: ORIGINAL: HatesParisHilton Then again, realistically, if YOU are the shit stirrer and using me (conveniently) to hide YOR shitstirring, BASED on Saul's rules as you provided, how would we ever KNOW? Don't like it when the shoe's on the other foot, huh? [:)] Tough. You wanna play stinky in the big leagues, expect to get a little brown. Firm

HatesParisHilton -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (6/30/2009 10:10:20 PM)
"If you don't understand what I wrote, quit trying to display your eruditeness and ask for clarification and I'll reciprocate with plain and simple words. " \ Now YOU need to recall what "big Leagues" mean. Big Leaguers DON'T put words in the mouths of others as you did there. You just pantsed yourself there, "Remora". I understood prcisely what you wrote, I calledyou on your MOTIVE which has yet to raise it's head from the morass of your own self-presumed command of the debate floor, stress on "PRESUMED". Straw man arguments are as old as whinging about "ad hominem this and that" once you get stymied which you've been doing a bit of, pally boy. Apply more Saul before posting links to Saul. And I have no problem with any shoe on any foot because so far you have avoided the questions entirely so you have not had a foot in hand to PUT on my foot. You've had an EXPIRED COUPON FROM PAYLESS SHOES. Now bring me a pair of Italian 1960's 2'inch heels before you even MENTION shoes again, "Flake Meat with Spuds".

DomKen -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (6/30/2009 10:48:13 PM)
hoist by your own petard. quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY * IPCC Third Assessment Report "Climate Change 2001" Working Group I: The Scientific Basis Appendix I - Glossary Climate Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the "average weather", or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). These quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation, and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system. * ... as I said in the beginning, perhaps choosing your timeframe is more based on what you need in order to "prove" your point, than to try to reach a realistic understanding. Or perhaps I'm using the usual timeframe? quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Math again? This is really very simple. In 1750 the air contained 280ppm and today it contains more than 380. 380 is roughly a 36% increase (100/280). Therefore 36% more of the atmosphere is CO2 than in 1750. I never claimed it makes up 36% of the atmosphere but as is clearly stated 36% more than in 1750. You need to read closely what you have written yet again. If you still believe what you have written, you might ask someone with which you have a more ideological simpatico understanding in other issues about it, as I believe it's a waste of time to attempt to further correct your error on this specific issue. As I said ... the form, but not the substance of science. Pardon me? Is there or is there not 36% more CO2 in the atmosphere than there was in 1750? If you can't do simple math stop trying to lecture me on the subject. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Firmhandky I understand my own prejudices and biases most of the time, I think, and even admit to them. I try to use science and the scientific method to keep myself honest. Some people don't seem to believe that they have biases and prejudices, and twist the form of science to support their belief structure. This makes no sense as a response to the quoted material. It could be a back handed attempt to admit your error without directly admitting it and it could be yet another ad hominen swipe but mostly it is too vague to be understood. Plainly, then: No amount of facts or discussion will ever change your mind about this issue, as it is one of your core beliefs, and therefore not subject to rational discussion, or amenable to facts that run contrary to your belief. In direct reference to the other post of yours about the horrors of AGW, the reason I won't even address them to you is that it's flatly a waste of time. You are not interested in the discussion, other than as a venue to preach your beliefs and belittle your opponents. Which is what I've now allowed you to demonstrate several times. Firm I see badly worded ad hominen. The funny thing is how spectacularly wrong you are. Until fairly recently I was much more concerned with other forms of pollution than I was about GW. That was true until I went to Glacier National Park in 2002. This was my second visit, the first was in 1993. I was shocked to see that the glacier I had camped near on that last trip had retreated at least a half mile, in 9 years. That many thousands of years old glacier shrinking that fast shocked me. I studied the subject and the facts spoke for themselves. I'm amused that in a post where you attempt to impugn my character and reasoning skills you claim to be the unbiased one.

DemonKia -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (6/30/2009 11:07:33 PM)
Krugman is anti-death penalty & anti-torture, he's written about that in the past. It's disingenuous to represent him as otherwise. & why do you get to be sarcastic & he doesn't? I read what he wrote as poking fun at the notion of 'crying treason', something else that he's discussed in previous columns. Contextually what he's saying is that, if anything should get taken seriously as treason, certainly something as potentially serious as global climate change should get that level of treatment. & I was referencing your last paragraph as being hysterical. Your hysteria & emotional stuff leaks thru your attempts to be rational, in my opinion. & I still want to know how you jumping to such heights of hysteria help make your rational case . . . . . & you sound, to my ears, ever more emotionally upset with every post in this thread. quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: DemonKia That's quite a hysterical claim made, that last paragraph. Talk about hyperbole, you definitely trumped Krugman in that department. How does that help your case? quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Paul Krugman's words on Global Warming: quote: the deniers ... a form of treason ... the irresponsibility and immorality ... who show no sign of being interested in the truth ... Still, is it fair to call climate denial a form of treason? Isn’t it politics as usual? Yes, it is — and that’s why it’s unforgivable. Blasphemers and heretics of the Global Warming denomination of the Liberal One True Religion to be tortured and executed. Film at 10 ... [:)] Firm I guess you have a problem understanding sarcasm, then. That's what I wrote. That's not what Krugman wrote. He's defining skepticism and political dissent as treason. How is treason normally punished? And you seem to be perfectly fine with this. What was it that the left said during Bush's time as President? "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." Seems that was only another example of form over substance ... statements that others should follow and honor, but to which you and other "right thinkers" are not to be held to. Hmmm ... that is rule 4. I guess Krugman is reading the same book. Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (7/1/2009 4:45:33 AM)
FR: Jesus Christ, but you three guys are all hopeless mired in your ideology. "Fish in a barrel" isn't an exaggeration. Firm

HatesParisHilton -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (7/1/2009 6:12:46 AM)
No, you are hopelessly clinging to the idea that more hot air blown into your fillerbustering Blimp with no points being made will in any way end up differently than the Hindenberg. But hey, nice lungs, Impressario.

philosophy -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (7/1/2009 8:41:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY I reserve my condemnation and contempt for the people who argue for AGW from an ideological perspective, not at people who simply believe that current scientific evidence seems to support the theory of AGW. ....fair enough. Twue believers of any stripe tend to be irritating. However i have a hypothesis for you. Which i'll get to in a bit..... quote: At times, it isn't always easy to distinguish the difference, but I've found the use of the term and concept of "deny" or "deniers" an excellent pointer. .....in my opinion that's a pretty useless pointer. There are those who deny that the evidence on this subject supports the conclusion of a man made impact on global warming, or that the evidence is even good science. They seem to do so from an ideological perspective.....so we could say they are twue skeptics, the opposite of twue believers........and thus almost certainly just as wrong. Me calling them deniers is, in my opinion, merely pointing out a truth....... quote: Since I know it's impossible to read everything that any individual may have posted on a specific subject, or remember it if they can, I'll reiterate a few points of what I believe the science supports: 1. Tentatively, the preponderance of the evidence seems to support a gentle rise in average global temperature over the past few decades. ...yup, although the word 'gentle' in this context is a bit misleading. As far as i understand things climate is a dynamic in constant tension. A small change in one of the values governing it can have a big change as it works through. quote: 2. Mankind's industry and technology have increased the amount of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere. ....yup, although i have heard some 'deny' even that self evident fact. quote: A non-scientific observation that I make is: 3. There is a strong political and ideological component to both sides of the argument about whether or not the increase recently of human released (read: returned to the biosphere) CO2 may or may not effect the environment. ......i almost agree. There certainly can be such an ideological component...but not necessarily so. Well, this is a little complex. Everything is, ultimately, political.......however some, maybe even most, are arguing about this issue without an additional agenda. i'm absolutely not anti-industrial. Without industry we wouldn't be having this debate as i type away on my device of glass, rare metals, delicate electronics and specialised plastics. However, as i do believe that the balance of probability is that we are negatively impacting the environment and we ought to do something about it.....i am forced to the conclusion that industry will have to have a few years of being less profitable while it retools its processes to impact the environment less. i further believe that if we do it quickly it maybe a bit more painful in the short term, but will save a lot of pain in the medium/long term. Problem is, the solution i favour seems indistinguishable from that advocated by those who really are anti-industry. At least in the short term. quote: I think pretty much everything is open to discussion, and when people start claim to know "the truth", I tend to take the opposite point of view, if for no other reason than I'm a contary son-of-a-bitch. ...well, duh! [:D] So, my hypothesis time. That contrary streak of yours is in danger of making you a twue skeptic......blinding you to when someone is coming to a problem with eyes wide open rather than tightly focussed, yet coming to a conclusion different to yours. i'm not asking you to stop being skeptical.......far from it.........but that test of yours is rubbish, lumping in the twue believers with those who sincerely think there may be a problem that we need to deal with. There are deniers on both sides.......characterising those who point this out as being zealots is counter-productive and shuts down a reasonable debate.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625