Wow that was a whole lot of wingnut FAIL. Congratulations Subby, it's only 9:00 AM here and already you've won idiot of the day.

Dinki: Wow that was a whole lot of wingnut FAIL. Congratulations Subby, it's only 9:00 AM here and already you've won idiot of the day.

dammit! i was going to try for that title in a little while. now i have to figure out a different goal for the day

I haven't read anything that stupid since I stumbled across an old notebook I used in kindergarten where I wrote a story about dinosaurs on the moon.

If you want to argue about the validity of what a person says, ignoring what they say and only harping on where they got the funds to say it is pathetic. If your right, you don't need to make fun of where the money comes from, you can just point to the actual data that supports your claim. Why not make fun of a person for real reasons, instead of having to make some up?

Nowhere in this stunning display of intellectual impotency does the guy even address the actual content. It's just ad hominem, ad nauseum. Of course, what should I expect from a guy who isn't a scientist and is just some schmuk who admits he's not even a big enough fish to be part of the "global news media"? The willingness to admit you don't know jack about the science would be nice. Instead, we get this:

I am proud to raise the "They" flag. Because I dare ask questions, those pesky things journalists are supposed to handle. Who is funding Gore's $300-million campaign?

Yes. Because the most important question when it comes to global warming is where is the money is coming from. Such hard-hitting journalism. Jesus, no wonder more and more people are getting their news from The Daily Show. At least Jon Stewart comes right out and say that they're a joke.

The only thing that page is missing is this guy.



Liberallllssss...uunnngggghhhhhhh.

This is a load of shiat smitty. Don't you know that only oil money corrupts?

Dancin_In_Anson: This is a load of shiat smitty. Don't you know that only oil money corrupts?

The difference being that Gore's campaign is aimed at the public, and the oil company is directly paying off researchers who are willing to say global warming is a myth, who otherwise would be unable to get work because they suck.

They rarely even give anyone a chance to present a different view.

Oh great, another ignorant assbag who argues that we should have equal time for all views, no matter how unsupported by actual scientific research those views might be. Of course, by "all views" they mean their view.

Kome: If you want to argue about the validity of what a person says, ignoring what they say and only harping on where they got the funds to say it is pathetic. If your right, you don't need to make fun of where the money comes from, you can just point to the actual data that supports your claim. Why not make fun of a person for real reasons, instead of having to make some up?

Nowhere in this stunning display of intellectual impotency does the guy even address the actual content. It's just ad hominem, ad nauseum. Of course, what should I expect from a guy who isn't a scientist and is just some schmuk who admits he's not even a big enough fish to be part of the "global news media"? The willingness to admit you don't know jack about the science would be nice. Instead, we get this:

I am proud to raise the "They" flag. Because I dare ask questions, those pesky things journalists are supposed to handle. Who is funding Gore's $300-million campaign?

Yes. Because the most important question when it comes to global warming is where is the money is coming from. Such hard-hitting journalism. Jesus, no wonder more and more people are getting their news from The Daily Show. At least Jon Stewart comes right out and say that they're a joke.

Huh? Don't you want to know if a "scientist" is funded by an oil company? Sure, the funding he got might have no effect on his results, but don't you, the American voter who has to decide on policy, want to know who pays for shiat?

I do. I try to read everything I can on climate change. I think it's important, and I think we have to respond to it. But just the other day, NCAR called out the IPCC for being full of shiat on carbon sequestration projections. That's real scientists calling out politicians for not knowing what to do about climate change. So, yeah, I'm interested in how Al Gore came to his conclusions and who is funding him.

filth: Huh? Don't you want to know if a "scientist" is funded by an oil company? Sure, the funding he got might have no effect on his results, but don't you, the American voter who has to decide on policy, want to know who pays for shiat?

Wanting to know where they get their paycheck has no relevance to my objections to the scientific work they put out. If I have a problem with their science, I call them out on their science.
This has nothing to do with me being an American voter. This has to do with me caring about being critical of science for honest reasons, not reasons that have nothing to do with content. If a scientist is paid off by oil companies to only report favorable results, it will be reflected in their publications and reports. I don't need to bring up their paycheck to discredit the integrity of their findings, I only need point out their bad science.

So, yeah, I'm interested in how Al Gore came to his conclusions and who is funding him.

Yes, but those two things are not one in the same. And also, Al Gore isn't a scientist, so I don't give a sh*t about his conclusions on a scientific matter. You may be interested, but I have zero interest about where this money is coming from. If the science is good, it's good regardless. If the science is bad, it's bad regardless.

Kome: filth: Huh? Don't you want to know if a "scientist" is funded by an oil company? Sure, the funding he got might have no effect on his results, but don't you, the American voter who has to decide on policy, want to know who pays for shiat?

Wanting to know where they get their paycheck has no relevance to my objections to the scientific work they put out. If I have a problem with their science, I call them out on their science.
This has nothing to do with me being an American voter. This has to do with me caring about being critical of science for honest reasons, not reasons that have nothing to do with content. If a scientist is paid off by oil companies to only report favorable results, it will be reflected in their publications and reports. I don't need to bring up their paycheck to discredit the integrity of their findings, I only need point out their bad science.

So, yeah, I'm interested in how Al Gore came to his conclusions and who is funding him.

Yes, but those two things are not one in the same. And also, Al Gore isn't a scientist, so I don't give a sh*t about his conclusions on a scientific matter. You may be interested, but I have zero interest about where this money is coming from. If the science is good, it's good regardless. If the science is bad, it's bad regardless.

Hey, I understand how peer review works, but at the end of the day ALL scientific meat still gets put throught the political sausage grinder. There's never going to be a peer-reviewed, concensus scientific conclusion on what to do about climate change. That shiat is going to come out of Congress. But what Al Gore is pushing is the idea that there IS a clear plan to fix the problem, and people supporting him (as well as people in this thread) are equating those who question the remediation plan with those who question the science. And that makes the funding question all the more important.

If these nutsacks were truly committed to free enterprise, they'd latch on to the fact that transportation engineering and energy creation is going to spawn quite a number of new industries as our consumption patterns inevitably change.

.

As a scientist in training, I will gladly say whatever you want me to say for a rather large sum. Especially in a field I have no interest in.

jake_lex: The difference being that Gore's campaign is aimed at the public, and the oil company is directly paying off researchers who are willing to say global warming is a myth, who otherwise would be unable to get work because they suck.

In other words:

Dancin_In_Anson: only oil money corrupts

Dancin_In_Anson: jake_lex: The difference being that Gore's campaign is aimed at the public, and the oil company is directly paying off researchers who are willing to say global warming is a myth, who otherwise would be unable to get work because they suck.

In other words:

Dancin_In_Anson: only oil money corrupts

Is oil money used to spread the truth or not? Can you point to any oil company sponsored studies that have been published in any peer reviewed journals? Or will you ignore my questions like you did in this thread:Link (new window)

Chuck Wagon: Is oil money used to spread the truth or not?

Sure. What is it that makes their research any less valid than any one else's? Oh yeah...it's because only oil money corrupts. Thanks for clearing that up.

Can you point to any oil company sponsored studies that have been published in any peer reviewed journals?

About as many studies funded by Al Gore.



Or will you ignore my questions like you did in this thread:Link

Read my last post in that one amigo.

filth: Hey, I understand how peer review works, but at the end of the day ALL scientific meat still gets put throught the political sausage grinder.

So there's no need for me to contribute to it. If non-scientist Al Gore says something that is scientifically incorrect and I notice it, I'll call him out for being scientifically incorrect. I won't call him out because he gets a suspicious paycheck. I won't need to. In the mean time, I'm more concerned with what actual scientists are saying.

But what Al Gore is pushing is the idea that there IS a clear plan to fix the problem, and people supporting him (as well as people in this thread) are equating those who question the remediation plan with those who question the science.

You have to admit, there's significant overlap in those two populations. I have doubts about Gore's plan. It's obviously the plan of a politician, and that alone merits doubting its efficacy. I don't doubt the vast consensus among scientists that anthropogenic global warming is a serious problem that needs addressing. So doubting one without doubting the other is one thing. The author of TFA, on the other hand, doubts the science. And he doubts the science not based on any understanding of the science, but because of the media coverage! He's a self-important douchebag. Here are some links (all of them pop) to stuff he's written or said in the past. He's a moron and he's determined to be one.

Kome: You have to admit, there's significant overlap in those two populations. I have doubts about Gore's plan. It's obviously the plan of a politician, and that alone merits doubting its efficacy. I don't doubt the vast consensus among scientists that anthropogenic global warming is a serious problem that needs addressing. So doubting one without doubting the other is one thing.

Respectfully, you're falling into a classic advertising fallacy: false authority. Gore appeals to the authority of climate scientists who have convincingly shown mechanisms of climate change. But what he's actually selling is a remediation strategy on which there is NO scientific concensus. And he (and you apparently) then smear anyone who questions the remediation strategy as a "denier." Well fark that, and fark him. I want to know how much his solution costs, and I want to compare it to others and to the expected benefits from implementation. And frankly, anyone who doesn't want to undertake the cost-benefit analysis is either a dupe or selling something.

The author of TFA, on the other hand, doubts the science. And he doubts the science not based on any understanding of the science, but because of the media coverage! He's a self-important douchebag. Here are some links (all of them pop) to stuff he's written or said in the past. He's a moron and he's determined to be one.

Now you're doing exactly what you pretend to criticize. The article's author is a douchebag? He doubts good science without a reasonable basis to do so? Fine. But you're using the fact that he's wrong on other issues to say he's wrong to ask who's funding Al Gore.

By Gore's own calculation, people who oppose his global warming consensus "are in such a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view." He told "60 Minutes" March 30 that those who dare to challenge him are "almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona, and those who believe the Earth is flat."

There are so few of them that Gore is committing $300 million to convince them he is right.

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. ~ Michael Crichton

Shut up, Bevets, you cock.

patrick767: They rarely even give anyone a chance to present a different view.

Oh great, another ignorant assbag who argues that we should have equal time for all views, no matter how unsupported by actual scientific research those views might be. Of course, by "all views" they mean their view.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the idea of having "fair" or "balanced" media viewpoints is simply Affirmative Action for poorly defended or weak ideas.


Bevets:

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. ~ Michael Crichton

Well, often that is in fact the case. However, there are some things that at one point were debatable and profound but are now accepted by all. Atoms as the building blocks of matter (as elements), the germ theory of disease, the shape of the earth, heliocentricity, etc... They seem very elementary to us now, but that certainly was not always the case.

Also, despite all his Harvard^TM credentials, Dr. Crichton is an author, not a real scientist.

filth: And he (and you apparently) then smear anyone who questions the remediation strategy as a "denier.

I have doubts about Gore's proposed plan. I said that earlier. You must've glossed over it. I'm not critical of anyone who questions Gore for that particular reason. Gore is not a scientist, so I have no reason to listen to him on a scientific matter as if he were a scientist. I'm critical of TFA's author not solely because of what he thinks about Gore's plan, but primarily because he doubts the scientific consensus that anthropogenic global warming is a real phenomenon for irrelevant and capricious reasons.

But you're using the fact that he's wrong on other issues to say he's wrong to ask who's funding Al Gore.

It's an irrelevant question. It's a question that a scientific illiterate asks to draw people away from the fact that the critic has no intellectually honest criticism. That's why I'm saying he's wrong. No competent researcher looks at a paper, notices that the study was done thanks to a grant by the WeSaySo Corporation and throws it away ignoring it as biased garbage. Seeing that gives the reader more reason to be skeptical, but if the content of the paper stands up to rigorous scrutiny it doesn't matter who paid the bill. So if TFA's author, or you, want a real debate on the issue, let's focus on the content of the issue and not who gets paid by whom.

Dancin_In_Anson: About as many studies funded by Al Gore.

Show us a single study in the peer-reviewed literature that's been funded by Gore. Should be easy, since authors are required to list funding sources in the acknowledgments section of their papers.

...or just give us your usual snarky evasive one-liner.

FTFA: Gore's fort is filled to the brim with journalists, typical left-wingers and even naïve conservatives like Newt Gingrich and Pat Robertson, who are slated for some of the propaganda commercials.

Wait... did he... did he just group NEWT farkING GINGRICH AND PAT ROBERTSON into the 'liberal' pool???!??!!?

"Well, fark you two for acting like liberal pussies. Morans."

I love how stupidity is prioritized for greens. Hey is it dumb? Go with it!

liberalish: Crichton is an author, not a real scientist.

He also consistently confuses weather and climate, so there's about a brazillion to one shot that he has anything of value to add to this.

liberalish:
Oh yeah, I forgot an example of consensus: EVOLUTION

From the article -

He's (Gore) been trying to force America to embrace his apocalyptic vision.

**************************************

The looney tune cons and their inability to sound sane.

Yeah the other day i was coming home real late when Al Gore jumped out of the shadows and stuck a gun in my back forcing me to "embrace his apocalyptic vision".

Reminds you of O'Really's frothing at the mouth about the war on Christmas.

Remember in the early 90's when their mantra was "This is the biggest tax increase ever"

March_Hare: Show us a single study in the peer-reviewed literature that's been funded by Gore.

My point. Thanks for noticing.

Al Gore has been spewing his brand of science ever louder since he invented the internet. BTW, living in upstate NY, a little global warming is a welcomed thought.

Go back to raising tobacco and censoring rap music, Al.

>> Remember in the early 90's when their mantra was "This is the biggest tax increase ever"

I got a real nutty con relative.

When they raised cigarette taxes he actually said with a straight face "People are gonna start smoking pot instead of cigarettes after this tax increase cause they will be too expensive"

RandomExcess
Al Gore has been spewing his brand of science ever louder since he invented the internet. BTW, living in upstate NY, a little global warming is a welcomed thought.

science, environmentalism: "Hey, we need to make a few changes or else we're going to see catastrophic reductions in food production and biodiversity by the end of the century."

conservatives: "lol al gore invented teh internet"

Dancin_In_Anson: March_Hare: Show us a single study in the peer-reviewed literature that's been funded by Gore.

My point. Thanks for noticing.

You had a point? Well, you could have point that out earlier.

Dancin_In_Anson: This is a load of shiat smitty. Don't you know that only oil money corrupts?

Well, when one side is trying to do science, and the other side is attempting to confuse people into inaction, we see where the corruption lies.

On another point, people seem to have no concept whatsoever about how federal grant money actually works in the sciences. Say that a researcher gets a $300K/3yr grant to study some part of the radiation budget of the Earth. The researcher themselves will probably end up seeing about $7K-$10K per year of that grant. The rest will go to subsidize the college and maybe a grad student or two. It is the dirty little secret of how else the gov't is subsidizing schooling.

Dancin_In_Anson: My point. Thanks for noticing.

There are tons of articles that openly acknowledge funding from oil companies. Go to any chemsitry/geology journal, search for "exxon," and you'll get hits. I'm wondering where the Gore-funded articles are to be found.

patrick767: They rarely even give anyone a chance to present a different view.

Oh great, another ignorant assbag who argues that we should have equal time for all views, no matter how unsupported by actual scientific research those views might be. Of course, by "all views" they mean their view.

Why, oh why won't they give the correct viewpoint any air? You know, that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is turning up the heat so that the Holy Prego can soak deep into His Noodly Appendages.

/RAmen.
//Ragu Old-World Style? BLASPHEMY!

patrick767: They rarely even give anyone a chance to present a different view.

Oh great, another ignorant assbag who argues that we should have equal time for all views, no matter how unsupported by actual scientific research those views might be. Of course, by "all views" they mean their view.

Every time the "skeptics" bring this up, just ask them if it is ok for a 9/11 "truther" to be interviewed every time there is a story about the Sept. 11th terrorist attacks.

/Fair and Balanced

>> I'm wondering where the Gore-funded articles are to be found.

Oh they are all over the place.

None were ever found but that just shows how slick the liberals are.

They hid them when we were looking for the WMDs (which really are there but the liberals in Iraq hid those too)

This is awesome. Post funding info for some right-wing nutjob and Fark screams "OMG YOU CAN'T TRUST THAT. THEY'RE FUNDED BY TEH RICH." Post funding info from some left-wing nutjob and Fark quietly says "meh, so what?"

Your hypocrisy, let me show you it.

*popcorn*

sarcastrophe: This is awesome. Post funding info for some right-wing nutjob and Fark screams "OMG YOU CAN'T TRUST THAT. THEY'RE FUNDED BY TEH RICH." Post funding info from some left-wing nutjob and Fark quietly says "meh, so what?"

Your hypocrisy, let me show you it.

*popcorn*

Same rules apply. I don't criticize creationist "research" solely because it's funded by the ICR or DI, I criticize it because it's factually incorrect and point out where and why.

sarcastrophe: This is awesome. Post funding info for some right-wing nutjob and Fark screams "OMG YOU CAN'T TRUST THAT. THEY'RE FUNDED BY TEH RICH." Post funding info from some left-wing nutjob and Fark quietly says "meh, so what?"

Your hypocrisy, let me show you it.

*popcorn*

The science isn't funded by Gore. He is planning some stupid ad campaign.

Fallout Zone: people seem to have no concept whatsoever about how federal grant money actually works in the sciences

Others however, do. I wonder who was in office when his funding dried up...Just who could that be?

Bevets: The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

Just as those who broke with the consensus opinion that humans could not have an effect on the climate in the late 1960s and the early 1970s. You see, in your small mind with little knowledge of the scientific literature, you view the climate change deniers as the mavericks, as the people who are on the cutting edge of the field by going against the "consensus." You think that the consensus opinion has always been that humans can change the climate. However, that's not the case. The consensus was that humans could not change the climate and had no effect on the climate before the actual mavericks came along and demonstrated how humans could impact the climate. At first, their papers were scoffed at by the "consensus" but gained more support after further exploration causing the scientific community to shift thinking about human impact on climate.

The denialist aren't acting as pioneers in the field. They are merely reverting to 30-40 year old discredited science.

March_Hare: There are tons of articles that openly acknowledge funding from oil companies.

Are they peer reviewed?

RandomExcess: BTW, living in upstate NY, a little global warming is a welcomed thought.

Coming from someone who also lives in upstate NY, you're an idiot.

twilson2:
They hid them when we were looking for the WMDs (which really are there but the liberals in Iraq hid those too)

Shhhhh! If we don't keep causing problems, then blaming the other side for it, how will we win the 2000 and 2004 elections.

/yawn, what time is it? Have I been asleep long?

ugh, it's not about the existence of funding, it's about the reason for the funding. Why should theoretically-neutral oil companies give a damn about all this high-falootin' global warming hojibbly? BECAUSE THEY PROFIT FROM FOSSIL FUELS. What POSSIBLE ulterior motive do environmentalists and scientists have?? We don't make more money either way!

Kome: But you're using the fact that he's wrong on other issues to say he's wrong to ask who's funding Al Gore.

It's an irrelevant question. It's a question that a scientific illiterate asks to draw people away from the fact that the critic has no intellectually honest criticism. That's why I'm saying he's wrong. No competent researcher looks at a paper, notices that the study was done thanks to a grant by the WeSaySo Corporation and throws it away ignoring it as biased garbage. Seeing that gives the reader more reason to be skeptical, but if the content of the paper stands up to rigorous scrutiny it doesn't matter who paid the bill. So if TFA's author, or you, want a real debate on the issue, let's focus on the content of the issue and not who gets paid by whom.

But we're not talking about a peer-reviewed study; we're talking about an advertising campaign. A $300mm advertising campaign. That's more money than we spend in a year on two of the government's weather research centers, the kind with real climate scientists doing real science.

So the questions of why Gore's advertising and who is funding him are of central relevance to the issue at hand. And just because the TFA's author is a douchebag is no reason to ignore those questions.