Quote:And most of it is based in conspiracy theory.
Eh, some of it is not baseless. Do corporations, based on the ability to throw infinite money at politicians have more power than the average American in dictating policy? Do they propose laws and regulations that stifle start ups and competition? I think those are factually accurate.
Quote:More of the same, coming out every darn day:
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials...talism.htm
Slip off the Enviro-whacko masks and out come the globalist anti-capitalists.
But we should totally go right along with it because #science! 
So you think these scientists are trying to destroy capitalism.
Why can't we just all admit that man-made global warming exists, and then start talking about whether any proposed solution is desirable or affordable. The so-called denialists are merging together two different things: 1) is it true, and 2) do we want to do anything about it. The reason for their denial is #2. They say it's not true, because they don't want to do anything about it. Now, to me, #2 above is a legitimate point of discussion. But #1 above is not. #1 is settled as far as I can tell. So to me, the discussion should be about #2. To me, man-made global warming is about 95% settled. Whether we can afford any solution to it is a legitimate point of discussion. BUT WE CAN'T EVEN GET TO THAT DISCUSSION UNTIL WE AGREE ON WHETHER MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING EXISTS. And that's what is most frustrating about this whole argument.
Quote:So you think these scientists are trying to destroy capitalism.
Why can't we just all admit that man-made global warming exists, and then start talking about whether any proposed solution is desirable or affordable. The so-called denialists are merging together two different things: 1) is it true, and 2) do we want to do anything about it. The reason for their denial is #2. They say it's not true, because they don't want to do anything about it. Now, to me, #2 above is a legitimate point of discussion. But #1 above is not. #1 is settled as far as I can tell. So to me, the discussion should be about #2. To me, man-made global warming is about 95% settled. Whether we can afford any solution to it is a legitimate point of discussion. BUT WE CAN'T EVEN GET TO THAT DISCUSSION UNTIL WE AGREE ON WHETHER MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING EXISTS. And that's what is most frustrating about this whole argument.
No, Anthropogenic Global Climate Change does not exist. The science is fraudulent as we continue to see when more and more of the data are revealed to be incorrect or intentionally "massaged" to get the answers the zealots want. No crisis means no funding. No crisis means no assault on Capitalism. No crisis means all the Leftists in the Academia have no Echo Chamber to scream their falsehoods into. It's the biggest case of Groupthink we've ever experienced.
Quote:No, Anthropogenic Global Climate Change does not exist. The science is fraudulent as we continue to see when more and more of the data are revealed to be incorrect or intentionally "massaged" to get the answers the zealots want. No crisis means no funding. No crisis means no assault on Capitalism. No crisis means all the Leftists in the Academia have no Echo Chamber to scream their falsehoods into. It's the biggest case of Groupthink we've ever experienced.
You rather believe in an international conspiracy for result-based funding (which has no basis in reality) rather than believe the politicians you have voted for are lying to you. Your problem is your stupid pride.
Quote:You rather believe in an international conspiracy for result-based funding (which has no basis in reality) rather than believe the politicians you have voted for are lying to you. Your problem is your stupid pride.
And your problem is that you arent listening when they come right out and tell you why they are lying to you.
Quote:No, Anthropogenic Global Climate Change does not exist. The science is fraudulent as we continue to see when more and more of the data are revealed to be incorrect or intentionally "massaged" to get the answers the zealots want. No crisis means no funding. No crisis means no assault on Capitalism. No crisis means all the Leftists in the Academia have no Echo Chamber to scream their falsehoods into. It's the biggest case of Groupthink we've ever experienced.
This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Your point of view on whether man made global climate change exists is all stirred into a soup that includes politics (and paranoia). Your view on whether the problem exists is driven by your fear of the potential solutions that you think you can foresee: big government, assault on capitalism, the leftists taking over, etc. We shouldn't be mixing the politics in with the science. We have to separate the question of whether the problem exists from the question of what, if anything we want to do about it. Those are two different questions.
There are two questions:
1) Is there a problem.
2) If there is a problem, do we want to do anything about it.
But what you have decided is that you don't want to do anything about it, therefore, you deny there is a problem. It's like if there was a deadly disease sweeping the country, and the solution was a government effort to get everyone vaccinated, and you don't like big government, therefore you deny the existence of the disease.
Quote:This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Your point of view on whether man made global climate change exists is all stirred into a soup that includes politics (and paranoia). Your view on whether the problem exists is driven by your fear of the potential solutions that you think you can foresee: big government, assault on capitalism, the leftists taking over, etc. We shouldn't be mixing the politics in with the science. We have to separate the question of whether the problem exists from the question of what, if anything we want to do about it. Those are two different questions.
There are two questions:
1) Is there a problem.
2) If there is a problem, do we want to do anything about it.
But what you have decided is that you don't want to do anything about it, therefore, you deny there is a problem. It's like if there was a deadly disease sweeping the country, and the solution was a government effort to get everyone vaccinated, and you don't like big government, therefore you deny the existence of the disease.
No,you're wrong. The politics is the basis OF the science. There is no problem when politically motivated scientists aren't permitted to cherry pick their data to reach the desired conclusions.
Quote:No,you're wrong. The politics is the basis OF the science. There is no problem when politically motivated scientists aren't permitted to cherry pick their data to reach the desired conclusions.
I don't think it's possible to get through to this guy. He sure likes banging his drum to the carbon tax beat.
The Myopic Marty is what he should of changed his moniker to.
Quote:No, Anthropogenic Global Climate Change does not exist. The science is fraudulent as we continue to see when more and more of the data are revealed to be incorrect or intentionally "massaged" to get the answers the zealots want. No crisis means no funding. No crisis means no assault on Capitalism. No crisis means all the Leftists in the Academia have no Echo Chamber to scream their falsehoods into. It's the biggest case of Groupthink we've ever experienced.
Yes, yes we know the right hates Academia. We know why and it's not just the Leftist part.
Quote:And your problem is that you arent listening when they come right out and tell you why they are lying to you.
What are you talking about?
Quote:What are you talking about?
Quote:More of the same, coming out every darn day:
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials...talism.htm
Slip off the Enviro-whacko masks and out come the globalist anti-capitalists.
But we should totally go right along with it because #science!
Here you go. The article should clear it up for you.
Quote:Here you go. The article should clear it up for you.
An editorial from a rightwing "business's" rag?
*yawn* you can't be serious with this crap can you? It's comical how much of a caricature of the willfully misinformed you have allowed yourself to become. Please, keep posting.
And why don't you skip the middle man next time and just post what the executives at Koch Industries have to say about it? Just trying to save you some steps. Shillin ain't easy, I'm sure.
Quote:An editorial from a rightwing "business's" rag?
*yawn* you can't be serious with this crap can you? It's comical how much of a caricature of the willfully misinformed you have allowed yourself to become. Please, keep posting.
And why don't you skip the middle man next time and just post what the executives at Koch Industries have to say about it? Just trying to save you some steps. Shillin ain't easy, I'm sure.
I love how direct quotes from UN officials that are a matter of public record are considered "shilling" to you. You've crossed the line into faith my friend, and your faith is misplaced in those who don't like you.
Quote:Just like the AGCC fraud...
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/02/...ming-then/
But we MUST have FAITH because #science!!!!!!!!
If the point is that scientists might be wrong, because they have been wrong in the past, no argument from me on that. Scientists, unlike politicians, can change their mind based on evidence. That's because scientists are basically honest. That's one of the main prerequisites of being a scientist- to honestly accept what the evidence tells you.
Do I have faith in scientists? Yes, I do, because if it turns out they are wrong, they will tell me. In fact, that's what happened in the article you are linking.
Quote:Just like the AGCC fraud...
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/02/11/so-butter-is-good-for-you-just-like-global-warming-then/'>http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/02/11/so-butter-is-good-for-you-just-like-global-warming-then/</a>
But we MUST have FAITH because #science!!!!!!!!
I get it. Global warming isn't happening because one time in the eighties in Britain they told people to eat more carbs and less butter. Makes sense to me.
Quote:If the point is that scientists might be wrong, because they have been wrong in the past, no argument from me on that. Scientists, unlike politicians, can change their mind based on evidence. That's because scientists are basically honest. That's one of the main prerequisites of being a scientist- to honestly accept what the evidence tells you.
Do I have faith in scientists? Yes, I do, because if it turns out they are wrong, they will tell me. In fact, that's what happened in the article you are linking.
That's the whole problem though. Staunch defenders of a party weather can only parrot what they are told by party leaders. They then hunt up any and all tidbits of "evidence" to confirm the pre-existing bias being trumpeted by party leaders. Due to this they are unable to change their minds on their own or they lose a part of their own identity. That leads to not being able to understand that scientists can in fact change their mind based on actual evidence. Not various gotcha moments.
Some people are so fearful of losing their identity that they come to have utter disdain for actual intelligence in both the scientific and academic community.