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.

(Slate)   Kansas anti-science bill that would have cast doubt on global warming fails to make it through state legislature--but only because its sponsors were too incompetent to meet filing deadline   (slate.com) divider line 180
    More: Stupid, Kansas, state legislature, global warming, Fields of science, lawmakers  
•       •       •

1795 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Mar 2013 at 7:54 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



180 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-12 03:53:25 PM

snarfyboy: THE GREAT NAME: You should be concerned about the debasement of science.

I am. Climate science denial is some of the worst debasement of the scientific method I have ever seen, right after creationism.


I think we can agree that creationism is a nasty trick, and nothing to do with science.

But climate alarmism also shows the hallmarks of being a nasty trick. Every aspect of it reeks of propoganda. Human beings can claim to be scientists and they can claim to be doing science. But that don't make it true.
 
2013-03-12 04:09:08 PM

THE GREAT NAME: snarfyboy: THE GREAT NAME: You should be concerned about the debasement of science.

I am. Climate science denial is some of the worst debasement of the scientific method I have ever seen, right after creationism.

I think we can agree that creationism is a nasty trick, and nothing to do with science.

But climate alarmism also shows the hallmarks of being a nasty trick. Every aspect of it reeks of propoganda. Human beings can claim to be scientists and they can claim to be doing science. But that don't make it true.



I suggest focusing more on the science and evidence itself rather than the human beings involved, one way or another.

For instance, you have a backlog in this thread of unsupported claims as well as at least one falsified one - which you so far have ignored. If you wish to make the discussion about science and evidence, I suggest you start doing so yourself.
 
2013-03-12 04:12:45 PM

THE GREAT NAME: But climate alarmism also shows the hallmarks of being a nasty trick. Every aspect of it reeks of propoganda. Human beings can claim to be scientists and they can claim to be doing science. But that don't make it true.


This is what the creationists think about themselves.  You've just picked a different side of the same coin.  Whether you like it or not, climate science is put through the rigors of the scientific method just as evolution is. Peer reviews, repetition of results, etc.

Are you familiar with Occam's Razor?  Maybe you need this graphic:

whowhatwhy.com

and then get back to me about your conspiracy theory of "nasty tricks" by "psuedo scientists".
 
2013-03-12 04:16:01 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak:

From your linked article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2012/02/met-office-global-for eca sts-to.shtml):

"In all these years, the discrepancy between observed temperatures and the forecast are within the stated margin of error."

In other words, your claim that:

THE GREAT NAME: the UK's meteorological office, funded to the tune of hundreds of millions by a government that supports climate alarmism, has overestimated the long-term temperature forecast in 11 out of the last 12 years.

Isn't quite true.

Absolutely true, and supported by the article. In the bit you didn't quote, "it is the 11th year out of the last 12 when the Met Office global temperature forecast has been too warm.  ". You have told a direct lie about the contents of a citation provided by me, presumably in a bid to fool the casual reader. All further responses by you to my comments will be linked to this one, to allow the casual reader to know who the liars are on Fark.



You're avoiding the argument.

I'm not sure you understand what the implications of a margin of error in this context is. If one predicts, say, a value of 10 plus or minus 5, it is not somehow an overestimation when the real value turns out to be 8. Again, the discrepancy was within the margin of error.
 
2013-03-12 04:17:50 PM

Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: snarfyboy: THE GREAT NAME: You should be concerned about the debasement of science.

I am. Climate science denial is some of the worst debasement of the scientific method I have ever seen, right after creationism.

I think we can agree that creationism is a nasty trick, and nothing to do with science.

But climate alarmism also shows the hallmarks of being a nasty trick. Every aspect of it reeks of propoganda. Human beings can claim to be scientists and they can claim to be doing science. But that don't make it true.


I suggest focusing more on the science and evidence itself rather than the human beings involved, one way or another.


Both must be appraised - because science has to be scientific, but it is ultimately done by human beings.

For instance, you have a backlog in this thread of unsupported claims as well as at least one falsified one - which you so far have ignored. If you wish to make the discussion about science and evidence, I suggest you start doing so yourself.

So have you. You just keep trying to shift the burden of proof. It was sort-of working until I caught you lying about a citation I provided.
 
2013-03-12 04:19:34 PM

snarfyboy: THE GREAT NAME: But climate alarmism also shows the hallmarks of being a nasty trick. Every aspect of it reeks of propoganda. Human beings can claim to be scientists and they can claim to be doing science. But that don't make it true.

This is what the creationists think about themselves.  You've just picked a different side of the same coin.  Whether you like it or not, climate science is put through the rigors of the scientific method just as evolution is. Peer reviews, repetition of results, etc.


You obviously haven't seen the climate-gate emails.

Are you familiar with Occam's Razor?  Maybe you need this graphic:

[whowhatwhy.com image 600x800]

and then get back to me about your conspiracy theory of "nasty tricks" by "psuedo scientists".


Your picture is nothing but propoganda.
 
2013-03-12 04:21:30 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: snarfyboy: THE GREAT NAME: Your guy has vacuous trolling in the artcles. My guy has it in some of the comments (and I believe he deletes the worst comments whether pro- or anti-). I do not "double-talk". I leave that to those whoose opinions have escalated to the level of religion.

Confirmation bias.  You are favoring your guy because he's on your side. The both can be childish.  I just have a thick enough skin to see through that.

Regardless, as I said, the point is moot.  The points he makes and the articles he cites are what is important, and that you haven't addressed them once is very telling.

Also, you don't understand what the word trolling means.

Again, I gave your guy a chance and saw that he's just trolling. There really is a big difference in attitude on the two sites. What you are doing here is called "false equivilance". Same thing lefies used to do before the fall of the Berlin wall (... and no, I won't give a citation for that).

Anyway I have to go out now, into the snow that isn't supposed to be there. Let's pick this up in the next Climate thread.


Hopefully you'll be a bit better at supporting your arguments in the future. You've done a remarkably poor job here.

At least I've avoided outright lies.

http://www.fark.com/comments/7634697/82988317#c82988317



You stating that something is a lie does not make it so. I've stated my reasoning, and you've ignored it.
 
2013-03-12 04:21:38 PM

Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak:

From your linked article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2012/02/met-office-global-for eca sts-to.shtml):

"In all these years, the discrepancy between observed temperatures and the forecast are within the stated margin of error."

In other words, your claim that:

THE GREAT NAME: the UK's meteorological office, funded to the tune of hundreds of millions by a government that supports climate alarmism, has overestimated the long-term temperature forecast in 11 out of the last 12 years.

Isn't quite true.

Absolutely true, and supported by the article. In the bit you didn't quote, "it is the 11th year out of the last 12 when the Met Office global temperature forecast has been too warm.  ". You have told a direct lie about the contents of a citation provided by me, presumably in a bid to fool the casual reader. All further responses by you to my comments will be linked to this one, to allow the casual reader to know who the liars are on Fark.


You're avoiding the argument.


No, you're trying to reframe the argument. The point I made has nothing to do with error margins. If the MET office forecasts were unbiassed, you would expect approx 50/50 betweeen estimating over versus under. They went over eleven out of twelve times. That's in the order of 100:1 probability.
 
2013-03-12 04:23:12 PM

Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: snarfyboy: THE GREAT NAME: Your guy has vacuous trolling in the artcles. My guy has it in some of the comments (and I believe he deletes the worst comments whether pro- or anti-). I do not "double-talk". I leave that to those whoose opinions have escalated to the level of religion.

Confirmation bias.  You are favoring your guy because he's on your side. The both can be childish.  I just have a thick enough skin to see through that.

Regardless, as I said, the point is moot.  The points he makes and the articles he cites are what is important, and that you haven't addressed them once is very telling.

Also, you don't understand what the word trolling means.

Again, I gave your guy a chance and saw that he's just trolling. There really is a big difference in attitude on the two sites. What you are doing here is called "false equivilance". Same thing lefies used to do before the fall of the Berlin wall (... and no, I won't give a citation for that).

Anyway I have to go out now, into the snow that isn't supposed to be there. Let's pick this up in the next Climate thread.


Hopefully you'll be a bit better at supporting your arguments in the future. You've done a remarkably poor job here.

At least I've avoided outright lies.

http://www.fark.com/comments/7634697/82988317#c82988317


You stating that something is a lie does not make it so. I've stated my reasoning, and you've ignored it.


No, you told a specific lie. You claimed that my source did not support my claim when it does, virtually word-for-word. You think you can change the debate to one of error margins. But is is not and was not about that. You don't get to change the debate willy-nilly.
 
2013-03-12 04:25:00 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Your picture is nothing but propoganda.


So... you got nuthin' then.  I see.
 
2013-03-12 04:26:23 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: snarfyboy: THE GREAT NAME: You should be concerned about the debasement of science.

I am. Climate science denial is some of the worst debasement of the scientific method I have ever seen, right after creationism.

I think we can agree that creationism is a nasty trick, and nothing to do with science.

But climate alarmism also shows the hallmarks of being a nasty trick. Every aspect of it reeks of propoganda. Human beings can claim to be scientists and they can claim to be doing science. But that don't make it true.


I suggest focusing more on the science and evidence itself rather than the human beings involved, one way or another.

Both must be appraised - because science has to be scientific, but it is ultimately done by human beings.


Fair enough, but from what we've seen in this thread, you're very much focusing on the latter.

THE GREAT NAME: For instance, you have a backlog in this thread of unsupported claims as well as at least one falsified one - which you so far have ignored. If you wish to make the discussion about science and evidence, I suggest you start doing so yourself.

So have you. You just keep trying to shift the burden of proof. It was sort-of working until I caught you lying about a citation I provided.


Which I then responded to, and presented evidence about - which you then ignored. I don't believe there is a claim that I've made that I haven't backed up. You most definitely cannot same the same.

In addition, that you've ignored (or perhaps did not understand) a line of reasoning I've presented does not somehow mean I've lied.
 
2013-03-12 04:29:30 PM

snarfyboy: THE GREAT NAME: Your picture is nothing but propoganda.

So... you got nuthin' then.  I see.


It doesn't require a response. It's just suggestion, persuasive only to the gullibe, or those already converted. Seriously, unless you have something better to offer than muttering about Occam's razor and posting silly diagrams, I feel no need to respond beyond pointing out the obvious, which I did.

If anyone else is even still reading this, which I doubt, you're doing *nothing* to persuade anyone. Naturally, if you want your suggestive but misleading picture to feel like "victory" go ahead. But it says noting and means nothing.
 
2013-03-12 04:32:32 PM

Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: snarfyboy: THE GREAT NAME: You should be concerned about the debasement of science.

I am. Climate science denial is some of the worst debasement of the scientific method I have ever seen, right after creationism.

I think we can agree that creationism is a nasty trick, and nothing to do with science.

But climate alarmism also shows the hallmarks of being a nasty trick. Every aspect of it reeks of propoganda. Human beings can claim to be scientists and they can claim to be doing science. But that don't make it true.


I suggest focusing more on the science and evidence itself rather than the human beings involved, one way or another.

Both must be appraised - because science has to be scientific, but it is ultimately done by human beings.

Fair enough, but from what we've seen in this thread, you're very much focusing on the latter.


That's just the way the thread went. In earlier climatology threads, I've discussed the relavence of chaos theory in some detail. Look me up if you like.

THE GREAT NAME: For instance, you have a backlog in this thread of unsupported claims as well as at least one falsified one - which you so far have ignored. If you wish to make the discussion about science and evidence, I suggest you start doing so yourself.

So have you. You just keep trying to shift the burden of proof. It was sort-of working until I caught you lying about a citation I provided.

Which I then responded to, and presented evidence about - which you then ignored. I don't believe there is a claim that I've made that I haven't backed up. You most definitely cannot same the same.

In addition, that you've ignored (or perhaps did not understand) a line of reasoning I've presented does not somehow mean I've lied.


Err, no, you did lie. http://www.fark.com/comments/7634697/82988317#c82988317  points out the lie. It's black and white.
 
2013-03-12 04:33:34 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: snarfyboy: THE GREAT NAME: Your guy has vacuous trolling in the artcles. My guy has it in some of the comments (and I believe he deletes the worst comments whether pro- or anti-). I do not "double-talk". I leave that to those whoose opinions have escalated to the level of religion.

Confirmation bias.  You are favoring your guy because he's on your side. The both can be childish.  I just have a thick enough skin to see through that.

Regardless, as I said, the point is moot.  The points he makes and the articles he cites are what is important, and that you haven't addressed them once is very telling.

Also, you don't understand what the word trolling means.

Again, I gave your guy a chance and saw that he's just trolling. There really is a big difference in attitude on the two sites. What you are doing here is called "false equivilance". Same thing lefies used to do before the fall of the Berlin wall (... and no, I won't give a citation for that).

Anyway I have to go out now, into the snow that isn't supposed to be there. Let's pick this up in the next Climate thread.


Hopefully you'll be a bit better at supporting your arguments in the future. You've done a remarkably poor job here.

At least I've avoided outright lies.

http://www.fark.com/comments/7634697/82988317#c82988317


You stating that something is a lie does not make it so. I've stated my reasoning, and you've ignored it.

No, you told a specific lie. You claimed that my source did not support my claim when it does, virtually word-for-word. You think you can change the debate to one of error margins. But is is not and was not about that. You don't get to change the debate willy-nilly.



And you don't get to change the facts. It remains a fact that the actual values fell within the margin of error associated with the predictions and therefore were not overestimated - a solid line of reasoning that you're continuing to ignore.

What may explain your perception here is that you appear to be taking the statement of the journalist whom you linked to on faith without critically thinking about what he said. That the person who wrote that article thinks it is true doesn't necessarily make it so, again, for the same reason outlined in the previous paragraph. In short, you're both wrong.
 
2013-03-12 04:37:17 PM

Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: snarfyboy: THE GREAT NAME: Your guy has vacuous trolling in the artcles. My guy has it in some of the comments (and I believe he deletes the worst comments whether pro- or anti-). I do not "double-talk". I leave that to those whoose opinions have escalated to the level of religion.

Confirmation bias.  You are favoring your guy because he's on your side. The both can be childish.  I just have a thick enough skin to see through that.

Regardless, as I said, the point is moot.  The points he makes and the articles he cites are what is important, and that you haven't addressed them once is very telling.

Also, you don't understand what the word trolling means.

Again, I gave your guy a chance and saw that he's just trolling. There really is a big difference in attitude on the two sites. What you are doing here is called "false equivilance". Same thing lefies used to do before the fall of the Berlin wall (... and no, I won't give a citation for that).

Anyway I have to go out now, into the snow that isn't supposed to be there. Let's pick this up in the next Climate thread.


Hopefully you'll be a bit better at supporting your arguments in the future. You've done a remarkably poor job here.

At least I've avoided outright lies.

http://www.fark.com/comments/7634697/82988317#c82988317


You stating that something is a lie does not make it so. I've stated my reasoning, and you've ignored it.

No, you told a specific lie. You claimed that my source did not support my claim when it does, virtually word-for-word. You think you can change the debate to one of error margins. But is is not and was not about that. You don't get to change the debate willy-nilly.


And you don't get to change the facts. It remains a fact that the actual values fell within the margin of error associated with the predictions and therefore were not overestimated - a solid line of reasoning that you're continuing to ignore. ...


It is irrelevent that they fell within the error margins. Here's why: it is stistically signficant that out of 12 outcomes that should have been 50/50, 11 of them were overestimates. That was my original point, which you have failed to refute.

You also lied. See http://www.fark.com/comments/7634697/82988317#c82988317
 
2013-03-12 04:37:30 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Err, no, you did lie. http://www.fark.com/comments/7634697/82988317#c82988317  points out the lie. It's black and white.


Again, you simply stating so, without addressing in any way the argument presented or even outlining your reason for stating so does not make it true.

If this is your way of attempting to irrationally avoid an argument or the other unsupported or falsified claims you've made in this thread, you're doing a poor job of it.
 
2013-03-12 04:41:20 PM

Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: Err, no, you did lie. http://www.fark.com/comments/7634697/82988317#c82988317  points out the lie. It's black and white.

Again, you simply stating so, without addressing in any way the argument presented or even outlining your reason for stating so does not make it true.

If this is your way of attempting to irrationally avoid an argument or the other unsupported or falsified claims you've made in this thread, you're doing a poor job of it.


Actually, I think I've done my job just fine here. You now sound like a ranting 15 year old, and frankly I have better things to do.
 
2013-03-12 04:41:28 PM

THE GREAT NAME: It doesn't require a response. It's just suggestion, persuasive only to the gullibe, or those already converted. Seriously, unless you have something better to offer than muttering about Occam's razor and posting silly diagrams, I feel no need to respond beyond pointing out the obvious, which I did.

If anyone else is even still reading this, which I doubt, you're doing *nothing* to persuade anyone. Naturally, if you want your suggestive but misleading picture to feel like "victory" go ahead. But it says noting and means nothing.


If it's so simple, please debunk it.  Be my guest. But so far your typical responses are "Nuh uh" & "I love science and you're gullible!"  Not exactly the scientific method, I must say.

For fun, I will leave you with some article from a site I do happen to trust.  I fully expect you to ignore the content and simply try to defame the authors.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus. ht m
 
2013-03-12 04:51:19 PM

THE GREAT NAME: It is irrelevent that they fell within the error margins. Here's why: it is stistically signficant that out of 12 outcomes that should have been 50/50, 11 of them were overestimates. That was my original point, which you have failed to refute.

You also lied. See http://www.fark.com/comments/7634697/82988317#c82988317



In fact, it is the opposite of what you claim - true values that fall within a margin of error are not statistically significantly different from the predicted value by definition. What the margin of error means operationally is that you cannot differentiate between the predicted value and values within said margin of error (given the stated level of certainty, by convention 95%).

And, no, I didn't lie. Again, your failing to address an argument until now  (as well as a fundamental misunderstanding of statistics) does not somehow constitute a lie on my part.
 
2013-03-12 04:53:23 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: Err, no, you did lie. http://www.fark.com/comments/7634697/82988317#c82988317  points out the lie. It's black and white.

Again, you simply stating so, without addressing in any way the argument presented or even outlining your reason for stating so does not make it true.

If this is your way of attempting to irrationally avoid an argument or the other unsupported or falsified claims you've made in this thread, you're doing a poor job of it.

Actually, I think I've done my job just fine here. You now sound like a ranting 15 year old, and frankly I have better things to do.



Unfortunately, you're proving me right, as your response is indistinguishable from you attempting yet again to avoid the argument presented as well as the other unsupported or falsified claims you've made in this thread. You've had plenty of opportunity to correct this, but have failed to do so.
 
2013-03-12 09:15:59 PM

THE GREAT NAME: If anyone else is even still reading this


I'm still reading this.

You are a god damn dumbass.
 
2013-03-12 09:17:40 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Your picture is nothing but propoganda.


And this is why.

Without any qualifiers, to dismiss something as "propaganda" is a meaningless assertion.

You need to elucidate your claim for it to mean anything. You have not done so.
 
2013-03-13 12:51:14 PM

dookdookdook: So in this (slightly idiotic) metaphor, are the climate scientists with actual education and in-depth knowledge of the problem foxes or hedgehogs?


The climate scientists accepting climate change appear to tend to be foxes; opponents generally appear to be hedgehogs, though there's more than a few non-scientists accepting climate change who also appear to be hedgehogs.

(I wasn't the one who came up with the metaphor. I encountered it via Nate Silver's recent book.)

THE GREAT NAME: citation please


Since no-one else seems to have provided it, (doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107).

HTH, HAND.

imnotadoctor: Furthermore, people that are a bit better at quantitative thinking and posses above-average knowledge regarding science will STILL cling to their beliefs instead of established scientific facts that have been accepted by the majority of scientists investigating climate change.


And will have more tools for rationalizing their intransigence.
I think there's a couple studies on people's willingness to change their mind when findings contradict pre-existing belief being non-uniform over political orientation, as well; however, I'm not turning them up at the moment.
 
2013-03-13 03:36:11 PM

Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: It is irrelevent that they fell within the error margins. Here's why: it is stistically signficant that out of 12 outcomes that should have been 50/50, 11 of them were overestimates. That was my original point, which you have failed to refute.

You also lied. See http://www.fark.com/comments/7634697/82988317#c82988317


In fact, it is the opposite of what you claim - true values that fall within a margin of error are not statistically significantly different from the predicted value by definition. What the margin of error means operationally is that you cannot differentiate between the predicted value and values within said margin of error (given the stated level of certainty, by convention 95%).


Absolute rubbish.
 
2013-03-13 03:36:54 PM

Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: Err, no, you did lie. http://www.fark.com/comments/7634697/82988317#c82988317  points out the lie. It's black and white.

Again, you simply stating so, without addressing in any way the argument presented or even outlining your reason for stating so does not make it true.

If this is your way of attempting to irrationally avoid an argument or the other unsupported or falsified claims you've made in this thread, you're doing a poor job of it.

Actually, I think I've done my job just fine here. You now sound like a ranting 15 year old, and frankly I have better things to do.


Unfortunately, you're proving me right, as your response is indistinguishable from you attempting yet again to avoid the argument presented as well as the other unsupported or falsified claims you've made in this thread. You've had plenty of opportunity to correct this, but have failed to do so.


Still sounding pubescent.
 
2013-03-13 03:43:08 PM

Ishkur: THE GREAT NAME: Your picture is nothing but propoganda.

And this is why.

Without any qualifiers, to dismiss something as "propaganda" is a meaningless assertion.

You need to elucidate your claim for it to mean anything. You have not done so.


Look at it again Ishkur. It:

- Ignores the fact that big oil has been funding pro-AGW research for some time now
- Ignores the vested interests of "big green" (who builds the wind turbines, Ishkur?)
- Completely ignores government funding, subsidies, and other intervention, usually pro-AGW
- Underplays the financial resources of the activist NGOs (WWF annual budget $200 MILLION)
- Presents the reader with a false dichotomy and a loaded question
- And finally, provides NO information, cited or otherwise.

The last one is why I said "nothing but" propoganda.
 
2013-03-13 03:47:24 PM

abb3w: dookdookdook: So in this (slightly idiotic) metaphor, are the climate scientists with actual education and in-depth knowledge of the problem foxes or hedgehogs?

The climate scientists accepting climate change appear to tend to be foxes; opponents generally appear to be hedgehogs, though there's more than a few non-scientists accepting climate change who also appear to be hedgehogs.

(I wasn't the one who came up with the metaphor. I encountered it via Nate Silver's recent book.)

THE GREAT NAME: citation please

Since no-one else seems to have provided it, (doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107).

HTH, HAND.

imnotadoctor: Furthermore, people that are a bit better at quantitative thinking and posses above-average knowledge regarding science will STILL cling to their beliefs instead of established scientific facts that have been accepted by the majority of scientists investigating climate change.

And will have more tools for rationalizing their intransigence.
I think there's a couple studies on people's willingness to change their mind when findings contradict pre-existing belief being non-uniform over political orientation, as well; however, I'm not turning them up at the moment.


Pro-AGW folks claim to be very concerned about what they sometimes call the greatest crisis ever to face mankind, and always demand immediate action. But show them evidence that they may have been wrong, and instead of being relieved that the crisis might not be so bad, or might not happen at all, they just get peevish and start ranting like a 15 year old, and their position just polarises more and more.

Rationalise that, Mr amateur psycologist person.
 
2013-03-13 03:50:07 PM

THE GREAT NAME: - Ignores the fact that big oil has been funding pro-AGW research for some time now
- Ignores the vested interests of "big green" (who builds the wind turbines, Ishkur?)
- Completely ignores government funding, subsidies, and other intervention, usually pro-AGW
- Underplays the financial resources of the activist NGOs (WWF annual budget $200 MILLION)
- Presents the reader with a false dichotomy and a loaded question
- And finally, provides NO information, cited or otherwise.


Please provide citations for all of these.
 
2013-03-13 03:53:16 PM

Ishkur: THE GREAT NAME: - Ignores the fact that big oil has been funding pro-AGW research for some time now
- Ignores the vested interests of "big green" (who builds the wind turbines, Ishkur?)
- Completely ignores government funding, subsidies, and other intervention, usually pro-AGW
- Underplays the financial resources of the activist NGOs (WWF annual budget $200 MILLION)
- Presents the reader with a false dichotomy and a loaded question
- And finally, provides NO information, cited or otherwise.

Please provide citations for all of these.


No,YOU choose one you want to dispute. I'm not doing all the work here.
 
2013-03-13 04:32:21 PM

THE GREAT NAME: No,YOU choose one you want to dispute. I'm not doing all the work here.


No, it's your assertion. You're supposed to justify it. If you don't want to, then don't make baseless claims. But just for shiats n giggles:

THE GREAT NAME: - Ignores the fact that big oil has been funding pro-AGW research for some time now


Such as?

THE GREAT NAME: - Ignores the vested interests of "big green" (who builds the wind turbines, Ishkur?)


This is a false equivalency argument. You are making the same mistake right-wing bloggers do when they assert that Citizens United levels the playing field because unions (which comprise less than 12% of the workforce) donate to the Democrat party are on par with corporations who donate to the Republicans.

They are not in even the most remote sense comparable. Oil companies contribute over $600 billion to GDP. Wind power contributes $3 billion. To suggest that clean energy companies are in any sense "Big Green" is making a gross overstatement about the power and scope of their influence.

In fact, if anything, clean energy programs have declined over the last year.

Ishkur: - Completely ignores government funding, subsidies, and other intervention, usually pro-AGW


Like what, Solyndra? Yes, what a $529 million clusterfark that was. You know oil companies receive about $52 billion/yr in subsidies and tax breaks, right?

THE GREAT NAME: - Underplays the financial resources of the activist NGOs (WWF annual budget $200 MILLION)


Actually, the WWF's annual budget is about $245 million. Most of it came from individual contributors. Only $41 million was donated by governments. Not sure how much of that was the US government. Is this what you're so afraid of? $41 million? ...the US spends $41 million just wiping its nose, I'd hardly consider that expenditure enough to break the back of the powerful oil lobby.

Ishkur: - Presents the reader with a false dichotomy and a loaded question


How so?

Ishkur: - And finally, provides NO information, cited or otherwise.


That's true, however neither have you.
 
Displayed 30 of 180 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report