If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Dyson, himself a longstanding Democrat voter, is especially disappointed by his chosen party’s unscientific stance on the climate change issue.
"It’s very sad that in this country, political opinion parted [people’s views on climate change]. I’m 100 per cent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this issue, and the Republicans took the right side."
"Part of the problem", he says, "is the Democrats’ conflation of “pollution” (a genuine problem) with “climate change” (a natural phenomenon quite beyond mankind’s ability to control)."
No, this doesn't mean we should stop trying to clean the environment or abandon efforts to find cleaner energy sources, but it does mean that climate science is looking in the wrong direction, apparently.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Sigh. This is undoubtedly the dumbest thing I will read today.
You're making wide-ranging conclusions based on opinion articles from "100% Fed Up" now? Dyson might well be the most brilliant man on earth - but he doesn't know anything about climate science. That's been proven over and over again throughout the past decade, had you bothered with a basic search - he's just an insanely smart guy opining on something that doesn't really fit into his personal worldview.
In actual fact, it's "100% true" that mankind can control climate. To publicly claim otherwise is only to demonstrate one's own ignorance to a painful degree.
Freeman Dyson certainly doesn't care about demonstrating his ignorance - he's already a legendary genius and 90-odd years old; he doesn't give AF (and he shouldn't, either). The climate science community has largely been characteristically deferential to Dyson's reputation - while quietly pointing out he has no idea about climate science and doesn't really give a shit to learn about it, either.
I would say that I expected more from someone as highly educated as you - but hey, Dyson is a prime rebuttal in advance. It's easy to get caught in the trap of appeals to authority.
Sigh. This is undoubtedly the dumbest thing I will read today.
Are you really going to start that way?
You're making wide-ranging conclusions
Where?
based on opinion articles from "100% Fed Up" now? Dyson might well be the most brilliant man on earth - but he doesn't know anything about climate science. That's been proven over and over again throughout the past decade, had you bothered with a basic search - he's just an insanely smart guy opining on something that doesn't really fit into his personal worldview.
Whether it's his field is irrelevant. The man knows science, and the scientific method, and he's claiming that climate scientists are playing "fast-and-loose" with the process to see what they want to see, working backwards from their conclusion, not forwards from the problem.
In actual fact, it's "100% true" that mankind can control climate. To publicly claim otherwise is only to demonstrate one's own ignorance to a painful degree.
He never said that mankind can't control climate.
Freeman Dyson certainly doesn't care about demonstrating his ignorance - he's already a legendary genius and 90-odd years old; he doesn't give AF (and he shouldn't, either). The climate science community has largely been characteristically deferential to Dyson's reputation - while quietly pointing out he has no idea about climate science and doesn't really give a shit to learn about it, either.
They aren't really intelligent enough to judge him, maybe they should stop and pay attention to what he's saying, instead of rolling their eyes and saying he's "just an old man"?
I would say that I expected more from someone as highly educated as you - but hey, Dyson is a prime rebuttal in advance. It's easy to get caught in the trap of appeals to authority.
and you attack me just for posting an article for discussion? That's beneath me (you too, for that matter), and all you'll end up with is The Finger and a hearty "go **** yourself".
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
We trust a consensus of scientific fact about pretty much everything but this issue (for those that think like Tightpants). What is it about this issue that brings out the strange skepticism with some?
From what I've read, it's mostly in the US that anthropogenic climate change is disputed. The rest of the world generally believes the climate scientists. They don't try to cut earth-science budgets, or demand researcher emails to prove they're part of a conspiracy.
From what I've read, it's mostly in the US that anthropogenic climate change is disputed. The rest of the world generally believes the climate scientists. They don't try to cut earth-science budgets, or demand researcher emails to prove they're part of a conspiracy.
We trust a consensus of scientific fact about pretty much everything but this issue (for those that think like Tightpants). What is it about this issue that brings out the strange skepticism with some?
Originally Posted by reader50
From what I've read, it's mostly in the US that anthropogenic climate change is disputed. The rest of the world generally believes the climate scientists. They don't try to cut earth-science budgets, or demand researcher emails to prove they're part of a conspiracy.
That's a logical fallacy, FYI. Also, I'm not claiming climate change doesn't exist, or even that it isn't man-made, I'm just saying that one of the smartest people in the world is stating that the science behind current climate study is shaky, at best.
Originally Posted by besson3c
Why do you think this is?
and talking "beyond" someone in the 3rd person doesn't make you seem clever, it just makes you look like an asshole.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Why are they pretty consistently conservative/Republican though? That's what is so damn weird.
Oh good, you aren't talking about me after all, since I'm neither conservative nor a Republican.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
No, this doesn't mean we should stop trying to clean the environment or abandon efforts to find cleaner energy sources, but it does mean that climate science is looking in the wrong direction, apparently.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Where?
Your thread title is a question, you post a link, and then self-reply with a conclusion that mirrors the article's premise by saying "climate science is looking in the wrong place, apparently".
Or is this one of those times where someone draws a conclusion based on what you have actually written, and then you come in butt hurt and add a bunch of additional information to fill in the blanks and change the outcome?
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Are you really going to start off that way?
Only when the premise is as silly as this one.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Whether it's his field is irrelevant. The man knows science, and the scientific method,
"Well Jim, that's the best argument I've heard for someone's ability to opine on an incredibly broad, complex and nuanced scientific field!"
[QUOTE=Cap'n Tightpants;4337677]and he's claiming that climate scientists are playing "fast-and-loose" with the process to see what they want to see, working backwards from their conclusion, not forwards from the problem.[QUOTE=Cap'n Tightpants;4337677]
Oh yes. An entire discipline of science - with thousands of practitioners, the majority of whom likely think that they probably "know science and the scientific method", largely coming to similar broad conclusions give or take normal and healthy variance - is "doing it wrong". And this one 90-year-old genius who hasn't bothered to study climate science but who "knows science and the scientific method".......has actually been right all along over these past 10 or 20 years.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
They aren't really intelligent enough to judge him, maybe they should stop and pay attention to what he's saying, instead of rolling their eyes and saying he's "just an old man"?
It seems weird to me that you think they haven't actually done so. May I suggest you do some of the Google?
No, this doesn't mean we should stop trying to clean the environment or abandon efforts to find cleaner energy sources, but it does mean that climate science is looking in the wrong direction, apparently.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Where?
Your thread title is a question, you post a link, and then self-reply with a conclusion that mirrors the article's premise by saying "climate science is looking in the wrong place, apparently".
Or is this one of those times where someone draws a conclusion based on what you have actually written, and then you come in butt hurt and add a bunch of additional information to fill in the blanks and change the outcome?
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Are you really going to start off that way?
Only when the premise is as silly as this one.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Whether it's his field is irrelevant. The man knows science, and the scientific method,
"Well Jim, that's the best argument I've heard for someone's ability to opine on an incredibly broad, complex and nuanced scientific field!"
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
and he's claiming that climate scientists are playing "fast-and-loose" with the process to see what they want to see, working backwards from their conclusion, not forwards from the problem.
Oh yes. An entire discipline of science - with thousands of practitioners, the majority of whom likely think that they probably "know science and the scientific method", largely coming to similar broad conclusions give or take normal and healthy variance - is "doing it wrong". And this one 90-year-old genius who hasn't bothered to study climate science but who "knows science and the scientific method".......has actually been right all along over these past 10 or 20 years.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
They aren't really intelligent enough to judge him, maybe they should stop and pay attention to what he's saying, instead of rolling their eyes and saying he's "just an old man"?
It seems weird to me that you think they haven't actually done so. May I suggest you do some of the Google?
Your thread title is a question, you post a link, and then self-reply with a conclusion that mirrors the article's premise by saying "climate science is looking in the wrong place, apparently".
Really or apparently?
Or is this one of those times where someone draws a conclusion based on what you have actually written, and then you come in butt hurt and add a bunch of additional information to fill in the blanks and change the outcome?
This just looks like some projection. I just wanted to have a talk about the methods used by climatologists to come to their conclusions, especially in light of the fact those methods are being questioned by one of the greatest scientists in the world. Again, I'm not doubting that climate change is happening, or even that mankind is making it worse, I'm just curious if we're looking at it all from the wrong direction and wasting time and resources in the process.
Only when the premise is as silly as this one.
Ad hominem
It seems weird to me that you think they haven't actually done so. May I suggest you do some of the Google?
You know, I did that, and it's impossible to read what the consensus is, given how incredibly defensive the climatologists have been. They haven't addressed his points, they've only hurled insults and accusations. IOW, they don't sound like scientists as much as zealots.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
You know, I did that, and it's impossible to read what the consensus is, given how incredibly defensive the climatologists have been. They haven't addressed his points, they've only hurled insults and accusations. IOW, they don't sound like scientists as much as zealots.
Maybe they are tired of addressing these points? They are human, and we've politicized the fire out of this issue, often times with political apparatus attached to corporate lobbyists.
That's a logical fallacy, FYI. Also, I'm not claiming climate change doesn't exist, or even that it isn't man-made, I'm just saying that one of the smartest people in the world is stating that the science behind current climate study is shaky, at best.
You are cherry picking facts to fit your own narrative.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
That's quite astute, good point, but I don't believe that they're just tired of being challenged. After all, science is about always proving your theories, and adjusting them as more data is made available.
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
You are cherry picking facts to fit your own narrative.
I'll get to the root of it, then. I'm trying to understand where (or even if) climate science has taken a wrong turn. Just because I'm starting from a different perspective doesn't mean I'm adrift all by myself on this. Looking at it from the POV of someone who writes checks to NPOs, it's a fight for cash; nearly everyone is chasing money for either business startups or environment studies. The problem is, however, there's no altruism involved in any of it, any of them will gut, shame, or smear anyone else for grant money. Environmentalism is a brutal, brutal business, as rough and tumble as any other, and worse than most.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I've asked this before but never got an answer. Are you Greg?
Sorry, I must have missed your earlier question and was not trying to duck; I'm ShortcutToMoncton. My normal account is self-banned from Pol Lounge and I use this one very, very rarely when I have a hankering to get my panties in a knot about something silly.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Really or apparently?
Mmmmmhmmmmm.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
This just looks like some projection. I just wanted to have a talk about the methods used by climatologists to come to their conclusions, especially in light of the fact those methods are being questioned by one of the greatest scientists in the world.
There are ways to go about having a talk. If you're going to use the "let me start with a controversial anti-subject statement and then let's talk about it" method, you might as well try to use a halfway decent source.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Again, I'm not doubting that climate change is happening, or even that mankind is making it worse, I'm just curious if we're looking at it all from the wrong direction and wasting time and resources in the process.
I'm foolish enough to bite: okay, what direction should we be looking at it?
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Ad hominem
Incorrect. Pointing out the silliness of your thread premise is not an ad hominem.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
You know, I did that, and it's impossible to read what the consensus is, given how incredibly defensive the climatologists have been. They haven't addressed his points, they've only hurled insults and accusations. IOW, they don't sound like scientists as much as zealots.
Hilarious. Sounds like you aren't searching very hard.. But then again....from your initial and then subsequent comments, that's not a huge surprise.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
The guy lost my confidence when he said fracking was our future. Fracking has turned out to be a disaster for the environment. The gas engineers here in Houston say it's extremely dirty as they shoot all kinds of toxic chemicals underground which tends to make its way into ground water.
Just because I'm starting from a different perspective doesn't mean I'm adrift all by myself on this. Looking at it from the POV of someone who writes checks to NPOs, it's a fight for cash; nearly everyone is chasing money for either business startups or environment studies. The problem is, however, there's no altruism involved in any of it, any of them will gut, shame, or smear anyone else for grant money. Environmentalism is a brutal, brutal business, as rough and tumble as any other, and worse than most.
You are conflating science with advocacy groups and politics. Science is for the most part funded by the state, not by donations. And the scientific consensus among experts (Dyson is not an expert on the topic) is overwhelming in favor of anthropogenic climate change. What happens in advocacy groups is another thing.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
You are conflating science with advocacy groups and politics.
WRT to Climate Change, you can't separate them, and that's one of the main problems. In terms of dollars, from: donations, grants, advertising, and product development, environmentalism is a multi-trillion $ business.
Science is for the most part funded by the state, not by donations.
Perhaps 20 years ago, but not now, and especially not WRT to the Green movement. It's huge business, perhaps even the biggest business right now...
And the scientific consensus among experts (Dyson is not an expert on the topic) is overwhelming in favor of anthropogenic climate change. What happens in advocacy groups is another thing.
and with that much money at stake, and the fastest-growing industry in the balance, how can you completely trust that what you're being told isn't just more advertising? I'm not saying it's all "tail wagging the dog", we all need to be kinder to the environment and more frugal with natural resources, but in terms of identifying the main causal factors of Climate Change (let alone fixing it) I believe we're looking (purposely) in the wrong direction. IMO, we probably can't fix it and we didn't cause it. Have we been making it worse? Certainly. But we've only marginally sped up a process that was going to happen anyway, even if we'd never touched fossil fuels and HFCs.
That doesn't generate revenue, however, only a good crisis (that we can pin on someone and sell as repairable), does. "If we can't do anything, then no one will want to do anything." As it stands, I think everyone's being sold a bill of goods, "for their own good", because "it's better to do something rather than nothing" and the truth would just depress the shit out of everyone.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I knew this was where you were going from the first post. I guess you've assumed the mantle from ebuddy (may he rest in peace) and Doofy before him: taking the position that Climate Change Science is wrong, providing no valid proof for saying so, but requiring the entire discipline to be somehow "proved" to you in order to change your mind.
I howl with laughter at the absurd-yet-ominous statement that it's the "biggest business". The budget for non-renewable energy resource extraction that can objectively be shown as one of our largest man-made contributor(s) to present day GHG emissions absolutely dwarfs worldwide climate science and environmental budgets....I mean, literally by an order of magnitude. And yet, the popular refrain from the skeptic is the suitably ominous tone that all this science is somehow influenced by this huge money train that's out there for all these academics to ride, if only they can twist the science in a certain way to keep the tap flowing. Meanwhile a dime-a-dozen mid-level executive at one of the many international oil companies makes more money in a year than probably any scientist; or at least, all but a handful of the truly rock-star scientists. I say that not to denigrate oil extraction or non-renewable extraction or money in general; just as an objective fact that the argument is completely and utterly one-sided and absurd.
Ahhhhhhh. It's just so silly, and I knew it would be from the get-go.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Wake me up when you provide any argument whatsoever to support your apparent position that climate science is looking in the "wrong direction" for causal factors of climate change.
Or hey....maybe even explain what that means? Can you provide that courtesy?
Or hey....maybe even explain what that means? Can you provide that courtesy?
I did provide that courtesy, but I guess you were too busy being indignant that I would question current-day climatology.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Really? Don't call me a liar when you're the one not paying attention.
I'm not saying it's all "tail wagging the dog", we all need to be kinder to the environment and more frugal with natural resources, but in terms of identifying the main causal factors of Climate Change (let alone fixing it) I believe we're looking (purposely) in the wrong direction. IMO, we probably can't fix it and we didn't cause it. Have we been making it worse? Certainly. But we've only marginally sped up a process that was going to happen anyway, even if we'd never touched fossil fuels and HFCs.
That doesn't generate revenue, however, only a good crisis (that we can pin on someone and sell as repairable), does. "If we can't do anything, then no one will want to do anything." As it stands, I think everyone's being sold a bill of goods, "for their own good", because "it's better to do something rather than nothing" and the truth would just depress the shit out of everyone.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Really? Don't call me a liar when you're the one not paying attention.
wait.....that is supposed to be your argument? You just made a bunch of loosely connected declarations with zero supporting evidence.
Here, let me try:
"Cancer research is big business and labs are in steep competition. Have they made some progress? Marginally. But people still get cancer and die every day. As it stands, I think it's mostly a way to keep the money train flowing because 'it's better to do something than nothing'. But I think they are looking in the wrong direction for their answers."
The guy lost my confidence when he said fracking was our future. Fracking has turned out to be a disaster for the environment. The gas engineers here in Houston say it's extremely dirty as they shoot all kinds of toxic chemicals underground which tends to make its way into ground water.
I posted this before. The "scientific consensus" at the time was the earth was heading toward another ice age. The main culprit? The sun and the change in its orbit. The show features one of algore's advisors, Stephen Schneider.
Oh, here we go with the same old nonsense parade. Figures. In breaking news: scientists once thought HIV may have been contained to homosexual lifestyles. Therefore, HIV research cannot be trusted.
wait.....that is supposed to be your argument? You just made a bunch of loosely connected declarations with zero supporting evidence.
Here, let me try:
"Cancer research is big business and labs are in steep competition. Have they made some progress? Marginally. But people still get cancer and die every day. As it stands, I think it's mostly a way to keep the money train flowing because 'it's better to do something than nothing'. But I think they are looking in the wrong direction for their answers."
Ahhhhhh. Looks perfect!
It wasn't an "argument", I was beginning a discussion. Maybe you need to tone down the aggression just a little, it's a little out of place. Evidence is a strange thing, and if Climategate taught us anything, it's that it's very hard to even question the establishment on their practices, and now the researchers involved in that won't even admit it happened.
For the record, I believe that some pharma companies (at least the larger ones) don't focus on cures, perhaps even suppress research, for certain diseases, just so they can continue selling treatments for symptom. That's one of the reasons I pulled out of trading in big pharma, it's a dirty business. Maybe you should start a thread about that?
Oh, and speaking of not having proof, don't call me a liar unless you have better evidence yourself. That's entirely uncalled for.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
The fear mongering over fracking is only marginally substantive, at best. I believe some companies have done a piss-poor job of doing it more cleanly, especially 10+ years ago, but the process has become much, much safer.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
It wasn't an "argument", I was beginning a discussion.
Ahhhh yes, the 'ol "let's discuss how I believe an entire discipline of science is Doing It Wrong.......but let's not resort to facts or substantive discussions, please keep things to a comfortable and easy-to-understand level of conjecture and misinformation, thanks!"
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Maybe you need to tone down the aggression just a little, it's a little out of place.
No thanks. Taking a page from your own recent self-described modus operandi, I'll be as aggressive as I feel is warranted.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Evidence is a strange thing, and if Climategate taught us anything, it's that it's very hard to even question the establishment on their practices, and now the researchers involved in that won't even admit it happened.
If Climategate taught us anything, it's that scientists got very defensive when someone hacked their systems, released their correspondence, and then people with a clear agenda took a whole rack of specific statements out of context and accused them of professional misconduct.....even after extensive independent audits conclusively showed otherwise.
Who would've thought?!?
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
For the record, I believe that some pharma companies (at least the larger ones) don't focus on cures, perhaps even suppress research, for certain diseases, just so they can continue selling treatments for symptom. That's one of the reasons I pulled out of trading in big pharma, it's a dirty business. Maybe you should start a thread about that?
And this has what to do with the thread at hand?
Or are you implying that climate scientists might be selling the cure for climate change?
After all, it's not like any of the regular anti-climate change entities have any personal stake in ensuring that GHG emissions are not curtailed.......oh, wait.
What's your argument, again? Oh right, no argument.....just a discussion.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Oh, and speaking of not having proof, don't call me a liar unless you have better evidence yourself. That's entirely uncalled for.
Better evidence for what? Why would I be providing evidence?
I'll repeat my statement: you lied. Contrary to your own assertion, you did not, and have not, provide any argument whatsoever to support your claim that climate science is looking in the "wrong direction".
Vague speculation and random declarations are not an argument.
Ahhhh yes, the 'ol "let's discuss how I believe an entire discipline of science is Doing It Wrong.......but let's not resort to facts or substantive discussions, please keep things to a comfortable and easy-to-understand level of conjecture and misinformation, thanks!"
No, I just wanted to talk because my mind wasn't, and still isn't, set yet.
If Climategate taught us anything, it's that scientists got very defensive when someone hacked their systems, released their correspondence, and then people with a clear agenda took a whole rack of specific statements out of context and accused them of professional misconduct.....even after extensive independent audits conclusively showed otherwise.
That's irrelevant. What they said, no matter the context (I've read them, they aren't nearly as "out of context" as you want to believe), or how the info was obtained, was damning (with a repeat performance in 2011). The sheer volume of bias, coercion, and deceit is overwhelming. You can't cheer Snowden and then tar the people who released the ClimateGate docs, at least you can't while trying to maintain intellectually honesty.
Who would've thought?!?
I don't think you are (thinking, that is). You're just reacting and being a brat.
And this has what to do with the thread at hand?
There are signs of severe corruption in both areas of study.
After all, it's not like any of the regular anti-climate change entities have any personal stake in ensuring that GHG emissions are not curtailed.......oh, wait.
I don't care about the anti-climate change entities. In fact, I've made most of my money through investing in alternative energy tech.
What's your argument, again? Oh right, no argument.....just a discussion.
Yep. I use those to help make decisions.
Better evidence for what? Why would I be providing evidence? I'll repeat my statement: you lied. Contrary to your own assertion, you did not, and have not, provide any argument whatsoever to support your claim that climate science is looking in the "wrong direction". Vague speculation and random declarations are not an argument.
You're more of a liar than I'll ever be then, because you delude yourself. You whore out your judgement for "the greater good" and then get pissy if/when anyone questions it. That's contemptible.
No thanks. Taking a page from your own recent self-described modus operandi, I'll be as aggressive as I feel is warranted.
Talk about taking a statement out of context. Nah, I'm just going to ignore your PWL sockpuppet, I don't feel like letting you unload your emotional baggage on to me.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
No, I just wanted to talk because my mind wasn't, and still isn't, set yet.
That is a completely different thread, then. If you wanted a discussion, you could have initiated one.
Instead, you decided to try the proverbial equivalent of starting a Middle East discussion with a one-sided article written by an extremely controversial figure. And then you think you get to throw up your hands and innocently pretend it was all a misunderstanding? Come on. You're smarter than this, and so are we.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
That's irrelevant. What they said, no matter the context (I've read them, they aren't nearly as "out of context" as you want to believe),
The part when everyone knows you're lying again: when you claim to have read thousands of extremely boring and mundane emails and documents between climate scientists.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
or how the info was obtained, was damning (with a repeat performance in 2011). The sheer volume of bias, coercion, and deceit is overwhelming.
You are completely and utterly out to lunch. The Climategate emails revealed no such thing. Again: there were multiple independent inquiries that cleared the scientists involved of any misconduct or scientific fraud. In the end, the made-up controversy helped show everyone that more and better transparency was a Good Thing, and made a lot of scientists realize that they should probably be more professional with their emails. But considering it was a completely unanticipated data breach involving an extremely complex and changing discipline, it was actually surprising that more didn't come of it. But you're going to try your best, aren't you!
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
You can't cheer Snowden and then tar the people who released the ClimateGate docs, at least you can't while trying to maintain intellectually honesty.
That time you claimed "intellectual honesty" while trying to equate a targeted breach and data dump of scientists' emails by foreign nationalists with an anti-science agenda, which was deliberately twisted and misconstrued by anti-science media in an attempt to discredit the scientists and their work - but eventually cleared those scientists of any wrongdoing by multiple independent investigations.......with a guy who claims he just could no longer handle the illegal and/or unethical things his own government AND employer was doing, and released information that at least partly showed that he was entirely correct about what was happening?
Oh yeah. Totally. Just intellectually dishonest to think that those are two different situations in any way.....amirite?
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
I don't think you are (thinking, that is). You're just reacting and being a brat.
A wonderful deflection and non-response given your complete lack of information or evidence provided in what is ostensibly a discussion about science. Bravo.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
There are signs of severe corruption in both areas of study.
Lol. Where?? You're just saying stuff without any shred of evidence to back it up! Oh, there are "signs of severe corruption" in climate science? Do tell! By all means, point us to the severe corruption....
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
I don't care about the anti-climate change entities. In fact, I've made most of my money through investing in alternative energy tech.
....okay? So your financial tip is that one should not invest in things you do not care about? Or is it that one should not care about things you don't invest in? Or is this just another irrelevant deflection? Hmmmmm.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Yep. I use those to help make decisions.
If this is the type of information you have used to help you make decisions in the past, then I am scared for you.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
You're more of a liar than I'll ever be then, because you delude yourself.
....about what? What are you talking about? I ask you to provide proof to assess your broad claims, and your response is not to provide any proof and claim that I'm the one "deluding myself"? Hoooookay.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
You whore out your judgement for "the greater good"
.....I don't even know what this means. Or wait, do you think climate science is about your "judgment"? Like, you just sit back, think about it for a bit, and then use your wisdom to conclude everyone's doing it wrong?
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
and then get pissy if I don't think you are (thinking, that is). You're just reacting and being a brat.
Hah. Ooooooo, this kind of sounds like one of those threads when Shaddim realizes he's not looking too good and doesn't want to try backing up his own statements, so he gives a parting condescending insult and then takes his toys out of the sandbox and goes home....
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Talk about taking a statement out of context. Nah, I'm just going to ignore your PWL sockpuppet, I don't feel like letting you unload your emotional baggage on to me.
The part when everyone knows you're lying again: when you claim to have read thousands of extremely boring and mundane emails and documents between climate scientists.
Did I read all of them? No. Most had to do with personal garbage.
You are completely and utterly out to lunch. The Climategate emails revealed no such thing.
They actually do. You bitching and pissing that they didn't doesn't mean anything, snowflake.
That time you claimed "intellectual honesty" while trying to equate a targeted breach and data dump of scientists' emails by foreign nationalists with an anti-science agenda, which was deliberately twisted and misconstrued by anti-science media in an attempt to discredit the scientists and their work - but eventually cleared those scientists of any wrongdoing by multiple independent investigations.
They cleared them due to, "OMG, that was mean" and ignored the contents. They're gov't-funded, the idea that they're entitled to as much privacy as a private citizen not directly receiving such funds is laughable.
Oh yeah. Totally. Just intellectually dishonest to think that those are two different situations in any way.....amirite?
No, you're not right, actually. Either way, gov't-owned info was released, from gov't-funded computers and servers. The contents of those servers is public property.
A wonderful deflection and non-response given your complete lack of information or evidence provided in what is ostensibly a discussion about science. Bravo.
I took a page out of your book for that.
Lol. Where?? You're just saying stuff without any shred of evidence to back it up! Oh, there are "signs of severe corruption" in climate science? Do tell! By all means, point us to the severe corruption....
....okay? So your financial tip is that one should not invest in things you do not care about? Or is it that one should not care about things you don't invest in? Or is this just another irrelevant deflection? Hmmmmm.
My tip is to not get emotionally involved in investments.
If this is the type of information you have used to help you make decisions in the past, then I am scared for you.
Awww... How touching.
....about what? What are you talking about? I ask you to provide proof to assess your broad claims, and your response is not to provide any proof and claim that I'm the one "deluding myself"? Hoooookay......I don't even know what this means. Or wait, do you think climate science is about your "judgment"? Like, you just sit back, think about it for a bit, and then use your wisdom to conclude everyone's doing it wrong?
You blindly believe anything climate science, and any other data spit out by the progressive collective, without giving it critical thought, so I guess I can't attribute to malice what is more easily explained by sheer stupidity, or your lack of judgement.
Hah. Ooooooo, this kind of sounds like one of those threads when Shaddim realizes he's not looking too good and doesn't want to try backing up his own statements, so he gives a parting condescending insult and then takes his toys out of the sandbox and goes home....
No, it simply means that you're incapable of having a discussion bordering on politics (or science) without screaming and being a drama queen. Maybe you should adopt a religion, that way you can look at your political views with more criticism and not get so emotional about them?
(
Last edited by Cap'n Tightpants; Nov 5, 2015 at 03:45 PM.
)
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
WTF? The server is acting very strangely. Fixing whatever the hell happened...
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Progressive Collective sounds like a Jim Henson property.
I tend to think of it more as a Star Trek thing, very Borg-like.
Or, oh, even better! Like the Schoolhouse Rock videos. "Progressive Collective, what's their objective!"
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I.......don't even know what you're talking about. Blah blah blah, climate science is a big conspiracy? The usual paranoid rambling you get from the ignorant.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Wow, I got you to try and defend Big Pharma. That's awesome.
Lol, whaaaaaaaaaaat? How in God's green earth do you think I defended Big Pharma, when I specifically asked you about climate research? Are you completely high?
I don't even........where the hell are you going with this? Are you even reading what I'm saying? And you do understand how this relates more to big-emissions industries than climate science, riiiiight?
Hathahaha. And finally.......here we go! The proof! Hmmmmmm......let's see what we have here........oooooooo, a couple conservative think tanks! Published by.......hmmmmm......climate scientists? Oh. No. Anyone who's published a climate-related paper? Hmmmm. Nope. Appears more to be........some retired people with Big Industry backgrounds dedicated to anti-climate change and/or Right Wing causes! And from a brief review of their material......have almost no idea what they are talking about and make completely basic factual errors about climate science! Yay!
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
My tip is to not get emotionally involved in investments.
I don't even
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
You blindly believe anything climate science, and any other data spit out by the progressive collective, without giving it critical thought, so I guess I can't attribute to malice what is more easily explained by sheer stupidity, or your lack of judgement.
Orrrrr......orrrrrr..........my knowledge of climate science? The fact that I actually read these studies and understand them? The fact that I understand how they are created and rigorously checked? The fact that I am acquaintances with several climate scientists and have convenient ease of access to their vast knowledge when I have a stupid question to ask?
Or is it the fact that I don't form my opinion on climate science from agenda-driven shills on the internets, like you do?
No, it simply means that you're incapable of having a discussion bordering on politics (or science) without screaming and being a drama queen. Maybe you should adopt a religion, that way you can look at your political views with more criticism and not get so emotional about them?
Wait......politics.. That's an interesting and sudden addition to this thread! Might I point out that no one else has mentioned politics.....I've asked for nothing but science, anything but science....and suddenly, rather than have to actually talk about the science...... you post links to the right-wing "it's a vast conspiracy" blogosphere, and here we are - voila politics! Forget the science, am I right?
No.......let's not talk about the science. That would be so.....inconvenient.
*a bunch of indignant rambling with a plea to authority fallacy on top*
I score you only a 5/10 on that trolling. *golf clap* Brava.
The misrepresentation of what I was saying was over the top, and you were too pissy from the onset (something I'd already criticized), it really killed the mood and made me disengage and lose interest. Oh well.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
But of course it did. The old "appeal to authority" argument when talkin about science - as though we shouldn't consider what the actual scientists have to say when talking about science. Ye gads.
Your posts here are pathetic and ignorant. But you know that. Which is why you've "lost interest" in typical fashion.
I say that not to denigrate oil extraction or non-renewable extraction or money in general; just as an objective fact that the argument is completely and utterly one-sided and absurd.
Top