If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Time)   Jon Huntsman: "I'm not a meteorologist. All I know is 90 percent of the scientists say climate change is occurring. If 90 percent of the oncological community said something was causing cancer we'd listen to them"   (swampland.time.com) divider line 788
    More: Obvious, Jon Huntsman, Vietnam Era, financial instruments, commencement speakers, University of South Carolina, Rose Garden  
•       •       •

3637 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 May 2011 at 8:29 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



788 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-05-18 10:00:25 PM
Oh, now I remember chuckufarlie. He was pulling this "temperature proxies don't count because I don't want them to" crap in another thread, when I introduced him to the NAS' report on surface temperature reconstructions.

He copied into the thread a couple of the report's conclusions that he (incorrectly) claimed agreed with him, not realizing that the report contained conclusions diametrically opposed to what he was arguing. He didn't realize this, apparently, because he couldn't even make it through the list of conclusions on page 2.

When I pointed this out to him, he threw a hissyfit and put me on ignore.

So to everybody arguing with this twit- the best you can hope for, if you really take him to school, is that he'll put you on ignore and show up in the next AGW thread spewing the same stupid crap.
 
2011-05-18 10:07:06 PM

hypnoticus ceratophrys: chuckufarlie: The data for the period 1850 to about 1900 is really not global because there is no reliable data from around the world to use.

And that is a large part of the problem. The period of time where reasonably accurate global data is available is less than 100 years.

How would you be able to make the determination between reliable and unreliable, out of curiosity? Do you know what methods for data collection are used and the basis for them?

The data prior to 1850 is called proxy data because there exists no real temperature data. It is based on things like tree ring growth.

Do you know how the information is obtained? Do you know what the other lines of supporting evidence for this data are and how it is obtained?

Consider that the amount of change recorded has been less than one degree. Using tree ring growth is not accurate enough to provide data that can be measured in one degree per century.

How do you make your determination as to what is accurate or not? What supporting evidence do you have for that methodology? What reference source are you basing the amount of change on?

I don't think that it is a coincidence that the "massive" amount of change happened right after real temperature data became available, no matter how little the sample was.

When did this 'massive' change occur? did it rally line up with your starting date of 1850? Where did you get this date?


Right, I'm out of time for this evening chucky. The bottom line is that you cannot answer those questions without an understanding of the science behind the answers. That includes a knowledge of isotopes, how to measure temperature in Celsius, what factors affect plant growth, and a whole host of other things that quite frankly you don't understand.

Until then, you just really want to believe. You can call me an ass if you want, but your posts speak for themselves.
 
2011-05-18 10:08:18 PM

Stefanwulf: I really would love a pointer to whatever data you use for the 1850-2010 comparison. I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm honestly just curious to see how much it varies between data sets!


The best comprehensive US site to find data about the climate that is reliable, easy to access and understand is The National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration (new window) There are as many blogs as you can shake a conspiracy theory at on the intertubes, and ten times as many people with bad or completely made up information.
 
2011-05-18 10:09:03 PM

hypnoticus ceratophrys: chuckufarlie: The data for the period 1850 to about 1900 is really not global because there is no reliable data from around the world to use.

And that is a large part of the problem. The period of time where reasonably accurate global data is available is less than 100 years.

How would you be able to make the determination between reliable and unreliable, out of curiosity? Do you know what methods for data collection are used and the basis for them?

The data prior to 1850 is called proxy data because there exists no real temperature data. It is based on things like tree ring growth.

Do you know how the information is obtained? Do you know what the other lines of supporting evidence for this data are and how it is obtained?

Consider that the amount of change recorded has been less than one degree. Using tree ring growth is not accurate enough to provide data that can be measured in one degree per century.

How do you make your determination as to what is accurate or not? What supporting evidence do you have for that methodology? What reference source are you basing the amount of change on?

I don't think that it is a coincidence that the "massive" amount of change happened right after real temperature data became available, no matter how little the sample was.

When did this 'massive' change occur? did it rally line up with your starting date of 1850? Where did you get this date?


Well, look who doesn't know a damned thing about the science behind the theory. IF you knew anything, you would not need to ask this basic questions.

Thanks for proving that you are a poser, a joke, a buffoon.
 
2011-05-18 10:14:34 PM

chuckufarlie: theory


Link (new window)
 
2011-05-18 10:25:46 PM

chuckufarlie: Well, look who doesn't know a damned thing about the science behind the theory. IF you knew anything, you would not need to ask this basic questions.

Thanks for proving that you are a poser, a joke, a buffoon.



nicksteel: That is rich. I ask questions, I get no answers. And now I am the one who is mis-directed?? I find it strange that you cannot answer simple questions.
 
2011-05-18 10:27:28 PM

hypnoticus ceratophrys: chuckufarlie: theory

Link (new window)


is that the best you got, poser???
 
2011-05-18 10:45:23 PM

bookman: Ablejack: bookman:

So 84% of people in the world believe in some version of God, so we should listen to them?



Where did you come up with this 84% figure? Lemme guess; either you made it up like a good little science denier, or you don't understand the words in the pretty picture you showed us.

??? Are you math-challenged? Or just abysmally stupid? I would think you are trolling, but that question has so much FAIL in it that trolling just can't be the answer. Please God, let it not be trolling. Seriously. Look at the graph. The graph is 100% of the set. The graph shows that 16% are "Non-religious." OK, Einstein, what is 100 minus 16?

Perhaps you should use the Calculator program, or Excel.

Shheeesh!

(Actually, the graph also says that half of that 16% are "theist" but don't believe in any organized religion. So perhaps the "belief in God" figure should actually be 84% + 8% or 92%. Again, you might want to crank up Excel to check my calculations....


So yeah you do admit you just made up the 84 then as i earlier supposed. And then you realized that your 100-16 equation was not so simple. [Especially with a graph that has over 100 "percentages".] You seem to think your "Oh Crap" moment (discovering some theists mixed in with other non-religious) makes your argument stronger and so you assume your figure must be even higher! 84+ you now claim or perhaps even 92. Yet you mocked me only for pointing out that it's not 84 in the first place!? A number you no longer agree with either.
And how many of the Buddhists do you feel believe in some sort of God? For that matter how many of the Christians, Hindus, Jews etc. do you think believe in some sort of God? And how will Excel or any calculator program help me here? I sincerely hope you are trolling and not this abysmally stupid.
 
2011-05-18 11:02:59 PM

Ablejack: And how many of the Buddhists do you feel believe in some sort of God?


It also displays a profound ignorance of folk religions, such as Animism or the "Chinese Traditional" on the chart, things that focus on ancestor worship, a spiritual world (or worlds) devoid of any sort of divine guidance, etc., etc.

And yes, he is this abysmally retarded. Any time I call him out on nonsense his response is almost clinically the same -- he makes reference to my dead mother. He stopped doing it explicitly after he got banned for it like the creeper he is, but he still makes little oblique references to Jergen's or hand lotion -- part of the comment that got him banned.

Not that I have a problem with him being creepy beyond natural means, but that's his rebuttal for everything re: me.

bookman claims 2 and 2 make 5 and I tell him it's four? LOL YOUR MOM IS DEAD.

So yeah, he really, truly is that abysmally retarded.
 
2011-05-18 11:13:32 PM

chuckufarlie: DarwiOdrade: chuckufarlie: DarwiOdrade: chuckufarlie: You do realize that nothing you have listed in a global change.

I'm used to you making no sense, but you've outdone yourself with that one.

Maybe you are the problem. Maybe you are too stupid to realize a simplce concept.

No, that's definitely not it. Your comment made no sense.

that settles it, you are an idiot.


yeah - you keep telling yourself that - it will ease the pain
 
2011-05-18 11:27:33 PM

chuckufarlie: Your example does not show that I claim to understand climate science better than everyone else in this thread and all the published experts.

Keep trying, scooter. I want to see just how much of a fool you can make of yourself. You're doing pretty well so far.


Suuuuure it doesn't. You just keep telling yourself that.

Meanwhile the rest of us will keep laughing at you, this time for being a hypocrite as well as being incompetent at science.
 
2011-05-19 01:25:53 AM

Dr. Mojo PhD: Ablejack: And how many of the Buddhists do you feel believe in some sort of God?

It also displays a profound ignorance of folk religions, such as Animism or the "Chinese Traditional" on the chart, things that focus on ancestor worship, a spiritual world (or worlds) devoid of any sort of divine guidance, etc., etc.

And yes, he is this abysmally retarded. Any time I call him out on nonsense his response is almost clinically the same -- he makes reference to my dead mother. He stopped doing it explicitly after he got banned for it like the creeper he is, but he still makes little oblique references to Jergen's or hand lotion -- part of the comment that got him banned.

Not that I have a problem with him being creepy beyond natural means, but that's his rebuttal for everything re: me.

bookman claims 2 and 2 make 5 and I tell him it's four? LOL YOUR MOM IS DEAD.

So yeah, he really, truly is that abysmally retarded.


You know, he struck me as unhinged, but I was mistaken to have not pegged him to be quite that deranged. That's just not right.
 
2011-05-19 03:07:28 AM
oldebayer:
GeneralJim: there is no reason to think OUR carbon dioxide event will have a noticeable effect

You do realize, of course, that the dinosaurs went extinct only after they discovered fire?

Discovering fire wasn't the worst of it...


www.threadless.com
 
2011-05-19 03:14:25 AM
HighZoolander:
Yes, because step 1 in publishing a paper or getting a grant is lying.

/moron

Step one in grant acquisition: "Hey, you know that climate catastrophe? Yeah, the one responsible for 95% of our current funding. Funny thing... turns out, there's no catastrophe. But, we know that you'll keep our funding at the current level because, you know, knowledge is a good thing."

/normal person
 
2011-05-19 03:33:19 AM
lohphat:
Of course it theoretically could be falsified, as any true scientific hypothesis can be. If you'd like to do so however, you'll have to knock down one of these two pillars:

#1. Carbon dioxide and other gases absorb the infrared frequencies of blackbody radiation outgoing from the Earth. Difficult, seeing as how the absorption properties of CO2 were first established by Fourier in 1824, and these days anyone with an optical spectrometer and a tank of the stuff can confirm it for themselves.

#2. The ~40% increase to date of CO2 concentration from its pre-industrial levels has been due primarily to fossil fuel burning. This would be easier to cast doubt on than #1, as the carbon cycle is vast and complex, with many fluxes and reservoirs to consider. However, given that the carbon isotopic composition of atmospheric CO2 has been changing over the years at rates that strongly suggest fossil organic matter as the causal influx, the data also leans heavily against you here.

If #1 and #2 are both true, then global warming due to human emissions of greenhouse gasses is all but certain. But hey, if you can disprove either of them, I guarantee that you will win the Nobel Prize in chemistry, physics, or both.

No, neither of those need to be disproved to disprove the alarmist position. Their position relies on much more than that. About two-thirds of the projected warming that has them dousing their drawers is due to water vapor positive feedback. Anyone with a basic understanding of positive feedback systems should understand that a system with a positive feedback of twice the size of the original signal will be unstable.

Proving that water vapor is a negative feedback to planetary warming utterly destroys the AGW alarmist argument. It's been done. So far, no Nobel prizes, though. Just simple, straightforward research.

Article, with links to papers, HERE. (new window)

Original research HERE. (new window)

Even NASA admits reality stubbornly refusing to follow models HERE. (new window)

And it looks a bit like this:


www.appinsys.com
 
2011-05-19 03:34:33 AM

GeneralJim: Step one in grant acquisition: "Hey, you know that climate catastrophe? Yeah, the one responsible for 95% of our current funding. Funny thing... turns out, there's no catastrophe. But, we know that you'll keep our funding at the current level because, you know, knowledge is a good thing."


THEY DO IT TO SUPPORT THEIR
i103.photobucket.com
ROCK STAR SCIENTIST LIFESTYLE
 
2011-05-19 03:41:57 AM
ghare:
Rigthties don't believe in climate change because liberal do.

If libs want conservatives to believe in climate change, they have to lie and say they were wrong and there is NO climate change. Because, as with most cases, the rightwing can not be swayed with facts. They're all about feelings.

Oh, really? A typical leftist program is the ethanol fuel program. A gallon of E-85 fuel:

o Costs more to produce.
o Gets lower mileage than gasoline in the same vehicle.
o Takes more oil to produce than a gallon of regular gasoline.
o Creates extra wear and tear on engines.
o Takes a tax subsidy of about $1/gallon to make it sell.
o Uses a LOT of #2 corn, causing a horrific spike in food prices.

Q: Why do we have such a stupid program?
A: It makes stupid hippies and greenies FEEL like they are helping.
 
2011-05-19 04:00:50 AM
HotWingConspiracy:
(they know full well the baggers lost them the senate, won't be happening again)

So, you'll eat any turd the Democrats serve you, eh? Hey, the only reason the Senate did not go Republican last time is that only 37 of the seats were up for election. A couple of facts: Republicans gained 6 seats with 37 in play. NO REPUBLICAN INCUMBENT LOST HIS SEAT.

And the Democrats call that "losing the Senate?" Yeah, and we've ALWAYS been at war with Eastasia.

And, here is another fact for you, Pumpkin: In the Senate race in 2012, there are 23 Democratic seats up for elections, including two independents who caucus Democratic, and 10 Republicans. The Republicans only need to win 14 of the 33 seats to have a majority in the Senate.
 
2011-05-19 04:13:29 AM
Shatner's Bassoon:
Volcanoes and comet impacts throw large volumes of particulates into the air that reflect sunlight and cause a net cooling effect - think nuclear winter. This has all been thoroughly studied and taken account of, except by you it seems. As we are not filling our atmosphere with more particulates than CO2, there actually is a reason to think that OUR emissions will have a noticeable effect.

Sulfur dioxide is spewed in huge quantities during a supervolcano. While it cycles out of the atmosphere in about 18-24 months, particulates even quicker, their effects on temperature are noted - as in the "year without a summer." Their effects are noted because they are not GHGs, and not part of any automatic atmospheric system which can correct for them, unlike carbon dioxide. However, their effects are of short enough duration that they affect only weather, not long-term climate. Well, that is unless the cooling spike happens to be timed correctly to trigger an ice age.
 
2011-05-19 04:14:06 AM

GeneralJim: Oh, really? A typical leftist program is the ethanol fuel program. A gallon of E-85 fuel:

o Costs more to produce.
o Gets lower mileage than gasoline in the same vehicle.
o Takes more oil to produce than a gallon of regular gasoline.
o Creates extra wear and tear on engines.
o Takes a tax subsidy of about $1/gallon to make it sell.
o Uses a LOT of #2 corn, causing a horrific spike in food prices.


You've literally supplanted US Corn-based ethanol fuel for all ethanol fuel globally, and then acted as if this was a sensible thing to do.

GeneralJim: Q: Why do we have such a stupid program?
A: It makes stupid hippies and greenies FEEL like they are helping.


Real A: Assuming we're talking about American corn ethanol fuels, it's because it makes American corn producers money.
 
2011-05-19 04:17:44 AM
DarnoKonrad:
pdee: an eye blink in terms of the history of climate on earth.

Yea, that's kinda the point. Citing CO2 fluctuation over the course of millions of years is different than digging up all that carbon and dumping it into the atmosphere over the course of a couple hundred.

Supervolcanoes and bolide strikes release pretty quickly... 13KYA, for example, it appears the entire North American continent burned off at once, after the Sudbury impact. That's a LOT of carbon. No trace of it in the temperature records, though.
 
2011-05-19 04:28:54 AM
Ctrl-Alt-Del:
Yeah, it's been a "meme" for more than half a century. Like all memes, though, it has evolved - "uppity" has gone out of style in general usage.


www.hyscience.com

When you claim I am arrogant, it only shows
how much better than you I actually am.
 
2011-05-19 04:36:48 AM
DarnoKonrad:
"change in climate" is not "climate change" Anyway, I know how hard you were trying, and you're excited to have a few bites, but it's too transparent. You're going to really need to hone your skills.

The climate changing isn't climate change? What are you saying? Are you claiming that "Climate Change" is a trademark for a manufactured product? Oh, wait... that actually makes sense.
 
2011-05-19 04:39:10 AM
Jesus v2.0:
Fly across the continental US and spend a few hours looking out the window. Humanity has made some pretty significant modifications to anything remotely resembling arable land. Beneath the surface we're draining aquifers at hundreds of times their recharge rate resulting in salt water incursion in some coastal areas and collapse in others. I could go on with a list of how we've modified the surface of the earth in ways that are not reversable on the time scale of human lives.

Man is certainly causing change to the planet. So does every species. You see this as a problem? Now, as you look out your window in your imaginary plane, not that NOT A GODDAM CHANGE YOU SEE was caused by carbon dioxide.
 
2011-05-19 04:49:16 AM
lennavan:
Honestly, I think proponents of "global warming" would do well to get together, sit down and decide on what to call it to the public. Then get the funding and run a huge advertising campaign simply to re-label it. My vote would be for something like "accelerated global warming."

Didn't you get the memo? It's now "Global Climate Disruption," at least for those most up-to-date on their hoaxer bureaucratese.

Actually, for historical reasons, I think it should be called "Piltdown Climate Syndrome."
 
2011-05-19 05:20:50 AM

GeneralJim: DarnoKonrad: "change in climate" is not "climate change" Anyway, I know how hard you were trying, and you're excited to have a few bites, but it's too transparent. You're going to really need to hone your skills.

The climate changing isn't climate change? What are you saying? Are you claiming that "Climate Change" is a trademark for a manufactured product? Oh, wait... that actually makes sense.


Way to play contextomy games, Jim.

Deliberately crop out nicksteel/chuckufarlie's moronic point about OMG PREHISTORIC ICE AGE! so that Darno's point that when people are talking just general changes in the climate, they don't mean the same thing we do in eg this specific thread when we say "climate change" as a catch-all word for an overarching scientific field.

But that's my Jim, pathologically dishonest, deluded, and stupid intellectually honest, well-grounded, and clever.

GeneralJim: Man is certainly causing change to the planet.


You seem to be extra-special-careful in not saying "Man is certainly causing change to the climate" as you did in this thread:

GeneralJim: beaverfetus: With regards to climate change, the scientific mainstream is convinced that 1. the planet is warming 2. human beings are likely contributing to that climate trend. If you choose to diverge from the mainstream, you should at least be aware that you are in fact supporting a fringe scientific conclusion.

I don't disagree with this conclusion.


Which is quite a bit different -- actually the complete opposite -- of what you said here:

GeneralJim: Men are not causing global warming, and neither is CO2.

Is it because you change positions so often on what you feel will best gain you acceptance that you feel better suited to ambiguity?

GeneralJim: Didn't you get the memo? It's now "Global Climate Disruption," at least for those most up-to-date on their hoaxer bureaucratese.


Oh boo-hoo, a bunch of babies don't understand that two words do not and cannot describe an entire field of study, and when the scientific community comes and changes your widdle diapers with a name that won't cause your eyes to pop out of your skull with retarded-ass reasoning like "HOW CAN THERE BE GLOBAL WARMING IF IT'S SNOWING IN NEW YORK IN DECEMBER?" as if that has any bearing on the global mean, and then you babies find a way to cry about that.

GeneralJim: Actually, for historical reasons, I think it should be called "Piltdown Climate Syndrome."


Why, Jim? How would that in any way be historically accurate?

Assuming for the sake of argument AGW is one giant hoax, how would it be accurate to compare it to Piltdown Man?

1. AGW is an entire field of study, like anthropology. Piltdown Man was a single hoax within the field of anthropology. Piltdown Man did not "disprove" anthropology as a field, so why would naming a "hoax" that encompasses an entire field after a hoax that encompasses a single find within a field by historically accurate?

2. Piltdown Man was disproven by anthropologists, not random cranks. Those who are attempting to disprove the AGW "hoax" are internet crackpots. For Piltdown Climate Syndrome to be a historically accurate name, wouldn't we need a team of climatologists to demonstrate the hoax instead of a bunch of crackpots? After all, that's what good scientists do; they find evidence to improve the theory, and they reject bad or unproven theories.

Do you ever know what the fark you're talking about?
 
2011-05-19 05:34:26 AM
"I respect science and the professionals behind the science so I tend to think it's better left to the science community - though we can debate what that means for the energy and transportation sectors."

And this is why Huntsman has been my favorite Presidential pick since 2009.

Just look up the family he came from and his record. If he can get the nomination, he can best Obama easily.
 
2011-05-19 05:36:07 AM
Dr. Mojo PhD:
You could drop the bullshiat emotional red flag of Nazi, but you don't.

Oh, you mean like calling people skeptical of the hoax "deniers?"
 
2011-05-19 05:40:17 AM

hetheeme: Just look up the family he came from and his record. If he can get the nomination, he can best Obama easily.


Why exactly? Just this sends the GOP into a frothing rage.
 
2011-05-19 05:54:52 AM

Halli: hetheeme: Just look up the family he came from and his record. If he can get the nomination, he can best Obama easily.

Why exactly? Just this sends the GOP into a frothing rage.


The economy is the #1 issue by far, and on that Huntsman is by far the most qualified. I enjoy having a guy at the wheel of the economy whose entire life's business experience was asking for more money for his government assisted law practice and community organizing money as much as the next guy, it's been fun watching a lawyer think he understands the first thing about economics and business, but it's about time we had an adult in charge who has well reasoned stances on social issues while possessing a serious resume for understanding how the business world works.

Huntsman understands what it takes to build a business, to maintain it, to deal with government as a business owner, and to deal with international competition. Obama never once dealt with government from the other side of the gov-biz relationship, he has been a regulator and a sting puller since he got out of law school. It's time to put the economy back in the hands of someone who doesn't see the entirety of the US as one big social engineering project, where wealth should be redistributed based on how much the government likes various groups of people.
 
2011-05-19 06:05:37 AM

GeneralJim: Dr. Mojo PhD: You could drop the bullshiat emotional red flag of Nazi, but you don't.

Oh, you mean like calling people skeptical of the hoax "deniers?"


Just to get this straight:

1. You flat-out assert it's a hoax.
2. A hoax is something that is false.
3. You have a problem with people who claim the hoax is "true".
4. Therefore you deny the "hoax" is true.
5. Therefore calling you a denier, which is what you literally are, is as bad as comparing any form of science whatsoever that one disagrees with to Nazi eugenics, without any evidence to link it to that.

Yeah, that about right skippy?

No, a better example of weasel words would be the term skeptic. Such as here:

GeneralJim: Oh, you mean like calling people skeptical of the hoax "deniers?"


"Skeptical of the hoax."

Huh. See, skeptical means you don't jump to conclusions. It means that you believe true knowledge in an area is uncertain (thank you Merriam-Webster).

Uncertain is not a synonym for hoax. A person who believes something is a hoax is not skeptical of it, they have come to their conclusion that the thing is false.

James Randi is a skeptic. However, James Randi is not still skeptical about Peter Popoff. He knows Popoff was faking it. While Randi remains skeptical about other things, Popoff is not one of them.

Not that you'd care about that, being as intellectually dishonest as you are. You're just happy to try and call AGW a religion and AGW proponents religious nuts, and try to gain science "cred" by labeling yourself as a "skeptic", which you're not, since your conclusion is reached.

In summary: Denier is accurate, you deny what is claimed. Skeptical is not, you demonstrate that your mind is decided but feign that certainty is not yet reached.

You are, as always, insane.
 
2011-05-19 07:44:24 AM

hetheeme: Halli: hetheeme: Just look up the family he came from and his record. If he can get the nomination, he can best Obama easily.

Why exactly? Just this sends the GOP into a frothing rage.

The economy is the #1 issue by far, and on that Huntsman is by far the most qualified. I enjoy having a guy at the wheel of the economy whose entire life's business experience was asking for more money for his government assisted law practice and community organizing money as much as the next guy, it's been fun watching a lawyer think he understands the first thing about economics and business, but it's about time we had an adult in charge who has well reasoned stances on social issues while possessing a serious resume for understanding how the business world works.

Huntsman understands what it takes to build a business, to maintain it, to deal with government as a business owner, and to deal with international competition. Obama never once dealt with government from the other side of the gov-biz relationship, he has been a regulator and a sting puller since he got out of law school. It's time to put the economy back in the hands of someone who doesn't see the entirety of the US as one big social engineering project, where wealth should be redistributed based on how much the government likes various groups of people.


Government is not the same as business. Mitt Romney proved that as Governor and Bush as president. They aren't supposed to be buddies. 2008 happens because of crap like that.

Also socialism talking point? Really?
 
2011-05-19 09:13:35 AM

hetheeme: Halli: hetheeme: Just look up the family he came from and his record. If he can get the nomination, he can best Obama easily.

Why exactly? Just this sends the GOP into a frothing rage.

The economy is the #1 issue by far, and on that Huntsman is by far the most qualified. I enjoy having a guy at the wheel of the economy whose entire life's business experience was asking for more money for his government assisted law practice and community organizing money as much as the next guy, it's been fun watching a lawyer think he understands the first thing about economics and business, but it's about time we had an adult in charge who has well reasoned stances on social issues while possessing a serious resume for understanding how the business world works.

Huntsman understands what it takes to build a business, to maintain it, to deal with government as a business owner, and to deal with international competition. Obama never once dealt with government from the other side of the gov-biz relationship, he has been a regulator and a sting puller since he got out of law school. It's time to put the economy back in the hands of someone who doesn't see the entirety of the US as one big social engineering project, where wealth should be redistributed based on how much the government likes various groups of people.


Building and/or running a business is all about telling other people what you want them to do to get the job done. You are the absolute boss and everybody does exactly what you tell them to do.

Being President is all about getting people to work with you. It is about compromise. The people who have to do what the President tells them all work inside the White House.

A businessman would end up crying in a corner at the end of the day.


Being President is more the economy. The President does not control the economy, Wall Street does.
 
2011-05-19 10:02:31 AM

chuckufarlie: Building and/or running a business is all about telling other people what you want them to do to get the job done. You are the absolute boss and everybody does exactly what you tell them to do.


That might be the worst management advice posted on Fark.

BuckTurgidson: For maximum authenticity, don't forget to come back tomorrow after everyone's gone and declare victory by carpet-bombing the end of the thread with a long sequence of unpleasant, smug, caustic replies to every previous post.


That might be the best evidence for psychic powers posted on Fark.

OgreMagi: To the greenies out there. What do you think is going to happen to the cute forest animals when enough people are without work and need food? Poaching already happens. Now imagine it on a massive scale.


I think this got overlooked in a chaotic thread. That's right, America-- if we enact pollution controls similar to those in Europe, everyone is going to eat all the squirrels. I know the last time I went to Germany, I couldn't find anything except raccoonwurst on the shelves.

That's right up there with GeneralJim's comments about how the goal of climate scientists is to revert us to a hunter-gatherer society. Good job, alarmists.
 
2011-05-19 10:41:22 AM

GeneralJim: lennavan: Honestly, I think proponents of "global warming" would do well to get together, sit down and decide on what to call it to the public. Then get the funding and run a huge advertising campaign simply to re-label it. My vote would be for something like "accelerated global warming."
Didn't you get the memo? It's now "Global Climate Disruption," at least for those most up-to-date on their hoaxer bureaucratese.

Actually, for historical reasons, I think it should be called "Piltdown Climate Syndrome."


Hi Jim, how are you today? I have a few questions for you as well. Why is it that you only post in global warming threads? What's more, how is it that you are so consistent in always posting in global warming threads but you are consistently in them a day or two after they are posted? You know they are there consistently yet you are consistently late. What internet mechanism would allow for such consistency but also such tardiness, except for purposefully joining a thread hoping to shiat on it after the majority of people are gone?

Why is it, that you consistently post walls of text and post after post but always wait to do so until after everyone has left? What possible reason could there be for this?
 
2011-05-19 11:05:26 AM

chimp_ninja: chuckufarlie: Building and/or running a business is all about telling other people what you want them to do to get the job done. You are the absolute boss and everybody does exactly what you tell them to do.

That might be the worst management advice posted on Fark.

BuckTurgidson: For maximum authenticity, don't forget to come back tomorrow after everyone's gone and declare victory by carpet-bombing the end of the thread with a long sequence of unpleasant, smug, caustic replies to every previous post.

That might be the best evidence for psychic powers posted on Fark.


That is not advice, you moron, it is an observation. Seriously, you are dumber than a rock and about half as useful.
 
2011-05-19 11:09:15 AM

chuckufarlie: lennavan: chuckufarlie: The truth needs to be told

chuckufarlie: I care about the truth. The truth needs to be told.

chuckufarlie: It is not enough that I know the truth, everybody needs to know the truth.

chuckufarlie: Because the truth must be shared so the lies are destroyed.

chuckufarlie: What part of "I care about the truth" are you having problems with?

chuckufarlie: I care that much about the truth

chuckufarlie: I am here top spread the truth

chuckufarlie: I have not posted my version of the truth in this thread

So if I may summarize:

You don't give a shiat about the general population. You care about the truth. You are here to spread the truth. The truth is super important to you. You need to spread the truth to the general population that you don't care about. And after being in this thread for 10 hours, you still have yet to spread any of that truth to the people that you don't care about.

Sound about right? I just want to get to the truth of the matter here.

I guess that you missed my Boobies. Seriously, how old are you? Isn't it about bed time???



I was hoping you would answer my questions. I, like you, want to get at the truth.

You don't give a shiat about the general population. You care about the truth. You are here to spread the truth. The truth is super important to you. You need to spread the truth to the general population that you don't care about. And after being in this thread for 10 hours, you still have yet to spread any of that truth to the people that you don't care about.

Do I have the truth correct here?

As a follow-up question, you'll note that as of my last post you hadn't spread any truth for 10 hours and much more time has passed since. Have you spread any truth since then? Is it still true to say you have not spread any truth thus far?
 
2011-05-19 11:16:56 AM

chuckufarlie: I guess that you missed my Boobies. Seriously, how old are you? Isn't it about bed time???


Are you hitting on lennavan? In a climate thread? I just want to get to the truth of the matter so the lies are ... DESTROYED.
 
2011-05-19 11:21:57 AM

chuckufarlie: I have not posted my version of the truth


1) Could you elaborate on the phrase "my version of the truth"? One would think that true statements do not have multiple versions.

chuckufarlie: I care about the truth. The truth needs to be told.


2) Given this claim (and many more like it), why have you not revealed your "version of the truth"?
 
2011-05-19 11:22:38 AM

GeneralJim: Jesus v2.0:
Fly across the continental US and spend a few hours looking out the window. Humanity has made some pretty significant modifications to anything remotely resembling arable land. Beneath the surface we're draining aquifers at hundreds of times their recharge rate resulting in salt water incursion in some coastal areas and collapse in others. I could go on with a list of how we've modified the surface of the earth in ways that are not reversable on the time scale of human lives.

Man is certainly causing change to the planet. So does every species. You see this as a problem? Now, as you look out your window in your imaginary plane, not that NOT A GODDAM CHANGE YOU SEE was caused by carbon dioxide.


Actually, planes are a real thing - it's amazing to contemplate, but you could get in one today and fly anywhere in the world.
 
2011-05-19 11:23:37 AM

chimp_ninja: chuckufarlie: I guess that you missed my Boobies. Seriously, how old are you? Isn't it about bed time???

Are you hitting on lennavan? In a climate thread? I just want to get to the truth of the matter so the lies are ... DESTROYED.


you are truly pathetic. I guess we can blame it on your level of ignorance.
 
2011-05-19 11:25:09 AM

chimp_ninja: 2) Given this claim (and many more like it), why have you not revealed your "version of the truth"?


He'll just claim you're too stupid or ignorant or obstinate to understand, and declare victory like he does in every climate thread.
 
2011-05-19 11:30:31 AM

GeneralJim: HighZoolander:
Yes, because step 1 in publishing a paper or getting a grant is lying.

/moron

Step one in grant acquisition: "Hey, you know that climate catastrophe? Yeah, the one responsible for 95% of our current funding. Funny thing... turns out, there's no catastrophe. But, we know that you'll keep our funding at the current level because, you know, knowledge is a good thing."

/normal person


Yes, because the climate experts who review climate grants would never see through such a flimsy attempt to deceive the funding agency. Do you honestly believe that the grant reviewers have no expertise in the relevant areas, and can so easily be blinded by bullshiat?

Oh wait, these scientists too must be part of a conspiracy to defraud the first world governments, and transfer wealth to their puppet masters in third world banana republics, so global socialism and economic collapse and all the traitor scientists will be rich forever.
 
2011-05-19 11:31:45 AM

lennavan: chuckufarlie: lennavan: chuckufarlie: The truth needs to be told

chuckufarlie: I care about the truth. The truth needs to be told.

chuckufarlie: It is not enough that I know the truth, everybody needs to know the truth.

chuckufarlie: Because the truth must be shared so the lies are destroyed.

chuckufarlie: What part of "I care about the truth" are you having problems with?

chuckufarlie: I care that much about the truth

chuckufarlie: I am here top spread the truth

chuckufarlie: I have not posted my version of the truth in this thread

So if I may summarize:

You don't give a shiat about the general population. You care about the truth. You are here to spread the truth. The truth is super important to you. You need to spread the truth to the general population that you don't care about. And after being in this thread for 10 hours, you still have yet to spread any of that truth to the people that you don't care about.

Sound about right? I just want to get to the truth of the matter here.

I guess that you missed my Boobies. Seriously, how old are you? Isn't it about bed time???

I was hoping you would answer my questions. I, like you, want to get at the truth.

You don't give a shiat about the general population. You care about the truth. You are here to spread the truth. The truth is super important to you. You need to spread the truth to the general population that you don't care about. And after being in this thread for 10 hours, you still have yet to spread any of that truth to the people that you don't care about.

Do I have the truth correct here?

As a follow-up question, you'll note that as of my last post you hadn't spread any truth for 10 hours and much more time has passed since. Have you spread any truth since then? Is it still true to say you have not spread any truth thus far?


what the hell is your problem? Answer quick before I put you on ignore
 
2011-05-19 11:37:09 AM

lennavan: chuckufarlie: lennavan: chuckufarlie: The truth needs to be told

chuckufarlie: I care about the truth. The truth needs to be told.

chuckufarlie: It is not enough that I know the truth, everybody needs to know the truth.

chuckufarlie: Because the truth must be shared so the lies are destroyed.

chuckufarlie: What part of "I care about the truth" are you having problems with?

chuckufarlie: I care that much about the truth

chuckufarlie: I am here top spread the truth

chuckufarlie: I have not posted my version of the truth in this thread

So if I may summarize:

You don't give a shiat about the general population. You care about the truth. You are here to spread the truth. The truth is super important to you. You need to spread the truth to the general population that you don't care about. And after being in this thread for 10 hours, you still have yet to spread any of that truth to the people that you don't care about.

Sound about right? I just want to get to the truth of the matter here.

I guess that you missed my Boobies. Seriously, how old are you? Isn't it about bed time???

I was hoping you would answer my questions. I, like you, want to get at the truth.

You don't give a shiat about the general population. You care about the truth. You are here to spread the truth. The truth is super important to you. You need to spread the truth to the general population that you don't care about. And after being in this thread for 10 hours, you still have yet to spread any of that truth to the people that you don't care about.

Do I have the truth correct here?

As a follow-up question, you'll note that as of my last post you hadn't spread any truth for 10 hours and much more time has passed since. Have you spread any truth since then? Is it still true to say you have not spread any truth thus far?


too slow!!!
 
2011-05-19 11:47:54 AM

chimp_ninja: chuckufarlie: I have not posted my version of the truth

1) Could you elaborate on the phrase "my version of the truth"? One would think that true statements do not have multiple versions.

chuckufarlie: I care about the truth. The truth needs to be told.

2) Given this claim (and many more like it), why have you not revealed your "version of the truth"?


There is my version of the truth and then there is yours. Of course, your version of the truth is nothing but a bunch of lies.
 
2011-05-19 12:16:35 PM
Chuckufarlie, you do realize the reason you're being picked on is because you claim all opposing evidence is false or unreliable without providing evidence to support the claim, right? You seem to love to argue, but arguing without factual proof isn't going to convince anyone.

Those against chuckufarlie, you do realize that as hard as you're trying to make sense of the situation, chuckufarlie is equally trying to make nonsense of it, right? He's determined to have the last word, and this could very well continue until the thread has 10,000 posts in it.

What one can take from this thread in the neutral stance could be summarized with the following list:

1). A TON of climatologists claim anthropogenic climate change is a real problem, and have published a myriad of results to back up their findings.

2). A TON of skeptics and deniers (classify yourself however you wish) believe otherwise and -- based on this thread -- seem to get offended and vehemently defensive when the evidence stacks against them.

3). By implementing greener technologies and taking steps to reduce pollution, we nip both the existence-debated anthropogenic climate change and drastic planetary-scale pollution in the bud, thus making the world a better place no matter which side (#1 or #2) is factually correct.

Can we at least agree on #3, and then agree to disagree on #1 vs. #2?

/I guess my take on #1 vs. #2 didn't turn out so neutral, did it?
// I heartily enjoyed reading this entire thread.
 
2011-05-19 12:25:55 PM

Crunch Time: 3). By implementing greener technologies and taking steps to reduce pollution, we nip both the existence-debated anthropogenic climate change and drastic planetary-scale pollution in the bud, thus making the world a better place no matter which side (#1 or #2) is factually correct.

Can we at least agree on #3, and then agree to disagree on #1 vs. #2?


Honestly, I think you would be more likely to find common ground if you pointed to addressing skyrocketing gas prices and long term energy needs in #3, rather than pollution and global warming. If someone doesn't believe in global warming, odds are they don't give a shiat about pollution/the environment either.
 
2011-05-19 12:26:44 PM

chuckufarlie: There is my version of the truth and then there is yours. Of course, your version of the truth is nothing but a bunch of lies.


Is this a kōan?
 
2011-05-19 12:38:09 PM

lennavan: Crunch Time: 3). By implementing greener technologies and taking steps to reduce pollution, we nip both the existence-debated anthropogenic climate change, ever-increasing gas prices, dependence on finite resources, and drastic planetary-scale pollution in the bud thus making the world a better place no matter which side (#1 or #2) is factually correct.

Can we at least agree on #3, and then agree to disagree on #1 vs. #2?

Honestly, I think you would be more likely to find common ground if you pointed to addressing skyrocketing gas prices and long term energy needs in #3, rather than pollution and global warming. If someone doesn't believe in global warming, odds are they don't give a shiat about pollution/the environment either.


Fix'd, thanks.
 
Displayed 50 of 788 comments

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report