Haha. I’m not a shill, an asshole, or a bloodsucking piece of scum. I’m just a citizen who likes to share his thoughts. I spent the afternoon doing volunteer work, believe it or not.
Why don’t you accuse me of being stupid too, while you are at it? Or is it possible that an intelligent person who doesn’t have an interest in the AGW debate might not see things your way?
By the way, you might want to ask yourself why you are unable to answer the 3 simple questions I put to you. Here’s a hint: cognitive dissonance
But what you don’t seem to understand is that it is perfectly possible to be far more irritating than the most abusive environmentalist while remaining at all times a model of civility. Your line about “brainwashing” is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. It wasn’t rude. It wasn’t even abrupt. You didn’t cast aspersions on the integrity of anyone’s lineage, or the net weight of anyone’s brain. But you did clearly imply that anyone who disagrees with you and dares express their disagreement in language you wouldn’t repeat in front of your mother was a brainwashed zombie who can’t think for himself. Never mind that the most august scientific institutions on the planet agree with the consensus on global warming. Never mind that for every dissenter, there are a thousand other scientists who have staked their reputations to the status quo. Never mind that the majority of deniers have tangible financial links to oil companies with a vested interest in clouding the issue of global warming and inciting debate where there really shouldn’t be any. And never mind the fact that the vast preponderence of evidence is on the side of those who argue that global warming is for real. No. None of that counts for diddly squat. My boilerplate objections are being met with some measure of hostility so therefore the environmental movement is comprised of prissy little automatons who can’t tolerate dissent in any form. Q.E.D.
I’m sure you’re not stupid. You are profoundly obdurate though. The fact is the vast majority of climate scientists believe AGW is happening. The chief naysayers are either non-scientists or a very small minority of climate scientists, some of them actually on the payroll of big oil companies. These facts don’t appear to be contested by you. Yet you still believe, why?
Thanks, but I was addressing brazil84. I have no respect for him, after watching him spread misinformation in GD on a regular basis.
I won’t bother debating him here, he is not worth the effort. I would rather insult him and call him out for what he is. I would do the same to Dick Cheney.
BTW: I will gladly debate almost anyone else on this subject, that is actually an honest member of this board and not taking money to help spread misinformation and cast doubt in the same style that the tobacco industry had used for decades.
How do you feel about presidential “signing statements” nullifying the laws passed by your elected legislators? How do you feel about small “free speech zones” placed where the cameras won’t see them? How do you feel about reporters being silenced by judicial threat? About American citizens held without due process and renditioned to other countries to be tortured? How do you feel about Supreme Court justices with close relatives involved in a candidate’s campaign being the swing vote that declares a minority vote-getter to be president? About deliberately choosing not to plan for the postwar transition in Iraq? About sending dubious allied Afghan and Pakistani troops to capture Bin Laden and being surprised he slipped through that cordon? About your First Amendment rights to speak and peaceably assemble being intentionally branded as terrorism if your cause is unpopular, for one example, the Animal Enterprises Terrorism Act? Your Second Amendment rights to carry a gun being eroded due to terror fears? Your Fourth Amendment protections from unreasonable search and seizure made moot by broad electronic eavesdropping? Your Fifth – and all other Amendments, for that matter, being neutralized if an answerable-to-no-one tribunal declares you an enemy combatant without having to show evidence?
Global Warming is a bigger threat to your freedom than these things, which actually directly eliminate freedoms defined by the Constitution? I shudder to think.
While Lord George Germain may indeed have been a fuckwit, by so badly mismanaging the British conquest of the Colonies, he’s done more for American freedom than our current Georgie boy will ever manage. How’s that for germane?
No need to apologize, I know I come off raving, but if you look at brazil84’s posting style and history, you might reach a similar opinion of him. Especially if you waste your time for a few days arguing with him.
Actually, my meaning was that such a reaction is a red flag. i.e. it’s evidence that the person is not thinking critically.
For example, What Exit made what was basically a fallacious argument earlier in the thread. Rather than just admit it when I called him on it, he lashed out at me. To me, that suggests that he’s not thinking critically.
Many people in this thread have suggested that I am brainwashed. I believe my reaction has been much more civil. The fact is that I’m willing to entertain the possibility that I’m dead wrong.
That’s nonsense. I’ve changed my views on many subjects over the years and it will not surprise me if many of my views change again.
Actually, I suspect that the degree of “consensus” is exaggerated. But anyway, I’ve defended my beliefs in a couple GD threads on the subject. Feel free to re-open those threads or start a new one in GD.
In the sciences, the best (but not infallible) indicator of truth is the consensus of people who have studied the empirical evidence. For the layperson (such as yourself) who is not qualified to judge the evidence on either side of the issue, it is the only reasonable means of determining the truth. Yet, despite the fact that you are not a climatologist, not in possession of all the evidence, and not capable of evaluating the evidence even if you were, you think you know better than those who have evaluated the evidence and come to an overwhelming agreement as to its import. I’m not sure whether it’s more accurate to describe your attitude as mere stupidity or as breathtaking arrogance.
I’m not pissed because you are challenging some sacred cow of mine. I am pissed because you are displaying the same obstinacy and irrationality as **lekatt ** displayed in a recent thread on evolution. Just like you, he thought that he, as a layperson, supported by a few outliers in the scientific community, was justified in rejecting the theory of evolution which is overwhelmingly supported by those who have the information and expertise to judge the merits of this theory. Arrogance and stupidity make for a bad combination, and one that I find particurly aggravating. That’s the source of my ire, not that you are challenging my party line.
I disagree. I think the best indicator of truth is if something has been tested by making unusual predictions that are later verified. To be sure, a consensus of experts is not to be taken lightly.
I disagree. I think a reasonably intelligent layperson can evaluate the arguments presented by both sides of the debate using a little common sense and critical thinking.
And by the way, I am skeptical of this so-called “consensus.” Somebody in this thread has claimed that 99% of climatologists subscribe to the AGW-CO2 theory, but I haven’t seen a cite for this.
My God…we are SOOOOOO full of ourselves, aren’t we? The GW “consensus” is so typical of the human-centric view of the world. Hell, even the freakin’ insects outweigh humanity on this planet in sheer tonnage. “MAN has CAUSED global warming! Booga booga booga!!”
Really? Hmmm…I seem to recall a rather large-ish yellow-orange fusion reactor in the sky that rises in the east and sets in the west every day, that can have more impact on temperature and environment in a single week than man has since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
And let’s not forget a few volcanoes scattered around the Pacific rim…
Humanity’s contribution to GW is a piss in the ocean compared to what our own planet and good friend Sol can do to us all on it’s own…
Yes, man IS contributing…and will continue to do so. At question is the SCALE of that contribution, and how much man’s efforts to reduce his own footprint will really matter.
My personal opinion is, rather than combating GW by focusing ONLY on our own impact, we should ALSO be focusing on what we can do to LIVE with GW, should it rise to the point of impacting our lives. This has been done before by humanity, and will be done again - changes in climate have caused us to change our lifestyles; the grains we grow and where we grow them, where we live and how we live, etc. I see no reason we should not be looking at these changes, in addition to anything we might consider to reduce our GW impact.
Did you really just post that?
I think we need another Krakatoa…
…or Pinatubo…
…or St. Helens…
…or Vesuvius…
…and God knows how many others CURRENTLY ACTIVE…
I want to see evidence (and I haven’t yet) that says, specifically, MANKIND has produced MORE greenhouse gasses than the volcanoes of the earth…and that THIS is DIRECTLY responsible for the rise in temperature, and NOT an increase in solar radiation…
