Dunning-Krüger in full effect here.
Even **Bricker **said it: “I am absolutely willing to accept the overwhelming scientific consensus: things are getting hotter, and mankind’s activity is contributing to that trend.”
You are really dumb by thinking that accepting that he is correct on his misunderstanding on the 1 billion number that it does deny what the science, the scientists or even **Bricker **thinks about the issue. Peculiar faith this one that even has scientists that worked for the petroleum industry and are Republicans like Richard Alley to look at the evidence and support what I say.
Shit like this is why I wonder if you actually might be imbecile. More than any other poster—by far—you miss the fucking point. You continually choose to not digest the fact that I agree in large part with your position on the basic facts of climate change. I think Bricker might say the same thing. But you really are like an evangelist on this topic. My guess is that you push people away from your position more than you attract people. I know you’ve done that for me. You make me very, very suspicious of what I have learned on the subject. I’m not a scientist. I’m not a climate expert, so I have no illusion that I must understand all the science and am very willing to accept a strong consensus. But when people are found to repeatedly overstate the case, I gotta say, “Whoa, maybe I was not given the straight dope to begin with”.
With just about every single post of yours I become more and more suspicious. I think more and more that there’s less “science” at play and more “agenda”. You are UN reasonable. Even when you might make an error on a tangential point, you defend yourself like Elmer Gantry on meth.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
For an even better example, go look at FX’s climate thread in the forum. He got his ass kicked like a rag doll by someone who knows about more about the science than he does and he ran away.
[/QUOTE]
BTW, just to show to all how deluded you are on your “capability” of identifying good sources or posters for that matter, I did not leave from the other thread because FX kicked my ass, he showed all that he is an universal jerk because he re-posted quotes from me and others and used that move to pretend that there was/is a “debate” going and and continues to bump the thread with that ruse, the last one was done to poster DMC.
When you are not able to spot what was going on there it just shows why you are having also problems with why Bricker is wrong on his demands when he continues to deny that there was an immediate following post that was a clarification done by me to Bricker.
There is also the issue that FX lied about how Plass and his theory are seen by scientists today, he just chose to ignore the evidence and clearly so do you.
As I have seen in the anti-Nuclear thread, most are already aware of FX’s self feeding troll capabilities. Except you.
Seeing the people you support and your **inability **to learn why they are not good examples to follow, demonstrates that in reality you only pretend to agree with me on the climate change issue.
Really just read what you posted there, you may lie to yourself really well but the reality is that you **never **report why FX and many others are indeed wrong.
I say bullshit. He kicked your ass. Then you looked for some little mistake or something so you have an excuse to run away. And I’m not going to wade back through those pages, but I’m going to go out on the world’s shorted limb and say that maybe, just maybe, your accusation of his “lying” is either he made a mistake or that he simply disagree with you on the interpretation of something.
Like I said, I do not need to make any evidence to show all that you are not fooling many with your “I accept the science” act. You make plenty of evidence for all to see.
You need to take a few weeks and read all that Bricker, I, and FX have written on the subject. I think you’d find that there is common ground. But you’re not satisfied with people sharing common ground on the big issue, you want converts, fellow acolytes like yourself that will swallow the exaggerations and/or lies of people like Al Gore and the religion he helped sprout. Questioning, doubting, means one is a denier. :rolleyes:
Unbelievable.
BTW :), you seem to not know what “to stop feeding the troll” means, it does not mean that he kicked my ass, plenty of private messages and support from other resident experts in the SDMB shows me that I made the right decision.
He just shows to be a coward when it is clear that he will continue to bump his thread and not start other threads on the subject in GD. He will just circle around like Jeremy from the Yellow submarine. Making all his nowhere plans for nobody.
Nope, the basis of the theory on how CO2 works in the atmosphere and the basic feedback from water vapor were all denied by him, his “common ground” was to show others how good he was at teaching grandma to suck eggs.
I’m wondering if a billion dollars is enough?
Strawman – I only said that “relatively little” of the AEI budget is devoted to climate change issues. Are you disputing that? Simple question: is my statement true or false?
How in the world is he a coward? Or a troll, for that matter? Please do explain. Also, why should he start another thread? And since you are this “man of science” why don’t you try to convince him his stance is wrong? Oh, that’s right. You already tried that and failed.
And your first paragraph here highlights your problem. You post on a liberal message board and you confuse the support you might get form the members here with being correct. This problem manifests itself also in the little game you play with cites. Your game os to find a way, any way, to discredit a cite that opposes you position, and embrace as gospel extremely biased cites like Media Matters. :rolleyes:
In other words, to spread the word of Gore. 
Amen.
This sentence bears repeating for emphasis.
There are many great things about this board and the community that comprises it. But one of its worse features is the unwillingness of its members to criticize errors made in service of the Correct Way of Thinking.
People can obviously see what happened in this thread. The OP posted commentary about a study that made a glaring error. Undoubtedly its true that conservative groups fund anti-AGW activities, but not to the tune of one billion dollars – that’s quite simply wrong.
GIGO immediately posted in support of the OP. I highlighted the problem with the billion dollar claim and asked GIGO if that was a valid criticism – and he replied that he didn’t think it was.
In other words, he made an error.
Now, in the space of a few minutes, he obviously recognized he wasn’t on firm ground and modified his stance.
But what he refuses to do is admit that for the space of a few moments, he was wrong. He’d much rather simply pretend that he was correct all along, instead of being an adult and saying, “Yes, for a moment I didn’t see the problem; now I do.” And he’s welcome to add any additional commentary, like “And the main point is not ‘a billion,’ but that this kind of dishonesty exists at all!” He’d be right, and I don’t contest that main point.
But I also am unwilling to go along with this “let’s all pretend” moment.
And here’s where the SDMB fails.
Every single person reading this can see that what I’ve said above is exactly what’s happened.
But because this is a criticism, however oblique, of a liberal pet cause, by a conservative, and a criticism of a liberal pet cause champion, they tell themselves that it’s not worth chiming in to agree.
And that gives the lie to all the pious nonsense about dispassionate seeking of only the facts. The narrative above accurately states the facts, but it doesn’t help the side you favor. So you don’t jump in to deny it…but you don’t jump in on my side either, because that would be helping a conservative at the expense of a liberal, and the scales have to be WAY more unbalanced before you’ll let yourself do that.
Right, Gentle Reader?
So, all those studies, all that data, that consensus amongst scientists, none of that is real? They just all came to Green Jesus, all at roughly the same time, all based on faith? That’s it? That’s what you got?
Totally right, friend Bricker. If only the liberal hypocrites of the SDMB shared your relentless and unerring commitment to the truth! You would still be mostly wrong, of course, but at least we could bask in the warm glow of your benign approval!
Merry Christmas. Be back on your case tomorrow, of course, but for now, cheers!
Of course. Are you guys just realizing this, now?
Of course you said that, (actually it was the volokh contributor) the point I made is that it was not accurate, not when they even consulted for the Bush the lesser administration, and that takes me back about what was going on then.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/05/AR2006040502150.html
As mentioned, it is an exaggeration and a misleading thing to refer to the 1 billion number as if all of it is used to fight climate change, but to say the opposite is also naive, as pointed before there is plenty of money that was re-porpoised that jumped from helping efforts to deny that tobacco caused cancer to throwing a monkey wrench to the efforts needed to curb CO2 emissions. The excuse from does omit the costs of political and propaganda efforts.
All that money buys respectability and access because it is used for other causes, but it is thanks to that that then this is a multiplier, the part that is only dedicated to climate change denial or to stop change where it counts is magnified in practical terms as it seems to come from a “renown” source. And really even if “just a little” is the norm, the reality is that the combined effort coming from many sources that should not be there (once again think AstroTurfing) makes for powerful influence.