[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
But the AGW proponents weren’t lying to back up their position.
[/quote]
Yes, but do you expect folks like Rush to care about that? The opposition lied, therefore they’re evil, because we know Rush would never lie or be hypocritical. Except when it comes to things like Oxycotin, but that wasn’t his fault, really. It was the doctors, and the police, and everyone else. Really.
I do not share your optimism. (And Dean is a bit of a nutter. I’m sorry, but it’s true.)
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan]
Yes, but do you expect folks like Rush to care about that? The opposition lied, therefore they’re evil, because we know Rush would never lie or be hypocritical. Except when it comes to things like Oxycotin, but that wasn’t his fault, really. It was the doctors, and the police, and everyone else. Really.
[/quote]
Do you expect him to care anyway??
ETA: he’s going to call them liars any which way, whether they take him in with a hoax like this or not. Most of the dittoheads aren’t going to notice why he’s calling someone a liar.
I’d have to have it for you to share. I used the comparative rather than the absolute for a reason. 
Perhaps, but if Rush is a 10 on the ‘disconnected from reality’ scale, Dean’s well under 1.
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
Do you expect him to care anyway??
[/quote]
No, but there’s no point in handing him more poo to fling.
So you’re hoping that the sound of their fapping will get to the point where it’s so loud they can no longer hear him speaking?
You’re still being optimistic. As proof of this I offer that the media has refused to shut [del]Skeletor[/del] Coulter up.
Meh, Rush ain’t that crazy. Rush is just a bit off. Coulter, OTOH. . .
I enjoy a good haw haw on Limbaugh (actually, I long for the day he get’s caught with drugs or with a live boy/dead girl) but you know, if someone who did what Thorpe did on the SDMB, wouldn’t they get banned for trolling?
[QUOTE=An Arky]
I enjoy a good haw haw on Limbaugh (actually, I long for the day he get’s caught with drugs or with a live boy/dead girl) but you know, if someone who did what Thorpe did on the SDMB, wouldn’t they get banned for trolling?
[/QUOTE]
Indeed, it’s happened before. A couple years back, longtime poster **Holy Bogus ** was banned for writing a hoax article on the candiru fish and linking to it. Story here.
I don’t quite see the problem. The article was transparently fake to anyone who bothered to check the cited sources. It reminds me of some of James Randi’s stunts-- a faith healer curing a transvestite of ovarian cancer, or psychic researchers pronouncing amateur magicians as genuine evidence of psi. In all cases, the message is the same: if you can’t recognize such an obvious hoax, you shouldn’t be claiming knowledge of this subject.
Of course, we may now expect to see a barrage of retaliatory hoaxes from the AGW denial camp, attempting to prove AGW proponents are just as gullible. One wonders how the hoaxers will bait their hook. Maybe their article will present the argument that corporations are not only responsible for global warming, they’re doing it intentionally.
[QUOTE=Terrifel]
I don’t quite see the problem. The article was transparently fake to anyone who bothered to check the cited sources. It reminds me of some of James Randi’s stunts-- a faith healer curing a transvestite of ovarian cancer, or psychic researchers pronouncing amateur magicians as genuine evidence of psi.
[/QUOTE]
Or Dan Rather with memos that couldn’t have been written in the 1960s. . .
[QUOTE=Terrifel]
Of course, we may now expect to see a barrage of retaliatory hoaxes from the AGW denial camp, attempting to prove AGW proponents are just as gullible. One wonders how the hoaxers will bait their hook. Maybe their article will present the argument that corporations are not only responsible for global warming, they’re doing it intentionally.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe they will do a study with a phoney “hockey stick” type graph that shows little temperature change for 900 years followed by 100 years of temperature increases.
[QUOTE=Giraffe]
I disagree. Anyone who thought global warming was a bunch of lies would have continued to think so regardless of whether this happened. I think this stunt has value as an object lesson: if you don’t understand the science you’re trying to cherry pick to support your predetermined position, you deserve to look like an idiot.
[/QUOTE]
The problem with object lessons is that they are really subject lessons. People tend to take whatever they’re already inclined to take from incidents like these. That’s why so many people on the left think Clinton was impeached for a blow job, and so many of their counterparts on the right think Muslims hate us for our freedom.
“What we see depends mainly on what we look for.” John Lubbock
[QUOTE=Terrifel]
Indeed, it’s happened before. A couple years back, longtime poster **Holy Bogus ** was banned for writing a hoax article on the candiru fish and linking to it. Story here.
[/QUOTE]
That’s a link to this thread.
[QUOTE=brazil84]
Maybe they will do a study with a phoney “hockey stick” type graph that shows little temperature change for 900 years followed by 100 years of temperature increases.
[/QUOTE]
You really cannot help yourself, can you. Do you acknowledge that the revised and more detailed graph of the last 1000 years still shows a pronounced increase of temperture starting around 1900?
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
You really cannot help yourself, can you. Do you acknowledge that the revised and more detailed graph of the last 1000 years still shows a pronounced increase of temperture starting around 1900?
[/QUOTE]
Show me “the revised and more detailed graph” and I’ll tell you.
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan]
I’d like to see someone ask one of these IDers if evolution is bunk, then how do they explain antibiotic resistant bacteria?
[/QUOTE]
ID theory does not hold evolution is bunk, only that it must have been guided by an Intelligent Designer (who has not necessarily retired, be it noted) to produce the results we see. And some versions of young-Earth creationism do not even rule out microevolution, i.e., adaptations over time within an established species.
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan]
The problem is, however, you’ve not only handed your enemies a club to beat you over the head with (“See! They’re willing to lie to back up their position!”), you’re also dealing with people who are unwilling to put too much thought on the issue to begin with, so they’re likely to not even pay attention when you explain to them that they’ve been had, and will repeat the lie as the truth.
Much better, IMHO, would be to point out that by not endorsing things like higher CAFE standards Rush & Co. are showing that they’re all for wastefullness, which should be the anti-thesis of conservatism. If they drive high mileage vehicles they can then invest the savings into other industries besides the oil companies, and other products besides oil (thus boosting the overall economy). Instead, they advocate doing nothing, thus proving they’re drooling slackjaws, because even if there’s no such thing as AGW, by putting money into things other than oil, they’ll be driving technology forward and opening up new economic possibilites, which is what the conservative movement is supposed to be about.
[/QUOTE]
Applause. This is a very solid post, and a plan that I wish I had thought of myself. I’m jealous.
[QUOTE=brazil84]
Rush Limbaugh is an idiot.
Reminds me of this incident.
[/QUOTE]
That was in my mind too but I could not remember the name. I was also thinking of a Barney hoax a few years back – a couple of “preachers” here in Tampa denounced Barney the Dinosaur as Satanic (a plot to deceive our children into believing in evolution, among other things) and local media picked up on it and everybody laughed at it as an example of how silly these religious-right nuts have become, but then it turned out the preachers were pranksters using a fake name, to point up the credulity of the media. Anyone can be fooled once – but Rush has not that excuse, especially since he had an AGW-skeptical climatologist telling him this article was a hoax!
[QUOTE=Quartz]
An odd comment, especially since there is no proof of the A in AGW. No evidence, even. But that’s been hashed over in many other threads.
[/QUOTE]
In science – and in law, and in daily discourse – “proof” and “evidence” are synonymous terms and neither implies any greater level of certainty or confidence than the other. (In mathematics the term “proof” is used exclusively to show a logically certain conclusion and the term “evidence” is not used at all; that is what may have confused you.) But that’s been hashed over, too.
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
The real target here, I’d expect, isn’t the dittoheads but the media - the pundits and reporters who treat Howard Dean as some sort of raving radical, but treat Rush almost like a GOP elder statesman, and don’t say boo when Dick Cheney goes on his radio show.
[/QUOTE]
That may be at least in part because Rush, unlike Dean, is part of the media. Not a journalist, no, but definitely part of the media.
[QUOTE=brazil84]
Show me “the revised and more detailed graph” and I’ll tell you.
[/QUOTE]
Here are few from the NOAA site.
This one was published in Reviews of Geophysics Vol. 42, No. 2, RG2002, doi:10.1029/2003RG000143, 6 May 2004.
The Spatial Extent of 20th-Century Warmth in the Context of the Past 1200 Years
or maybe Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data
Jim
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
Here are few from the NOAA site.
This one was published in Reviews of Geophysics Vol. 42, No. 2, RG2002, doi:10.1029/2003RG000143, 6 May 2004.
The Spatial Extent of 20th-Century Warmth in the Context of the Past 1200 Years
or maybe Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data
Jim
[/QUOTE]
Yep, and it looks like you bought it – hook, line, & sinker.
Here’s a web site you might want to check out:
[QUOTE=brazil84]
Yep, and it looks like you bought it – hook, line, & sinker.
Here’s a web site you might want to check out:
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes:
I showed you three different reports from three different studies and you point me to climateaudit.org, is this who you do your volunteer work for?
Steve McIntyre is a blogger. His scientific & work credentials are
[QUOTE=wiki]
He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in pure mathematics from the University of Toronto.[8] He was offered a graduate scholarship to study mathematical economics at MIT, but chose instead to study philosophy, politics and economics at Oxford. He graduated with a degree in these subjects in 1971. Upon his graduation, he left London and returned to Toronto.
McIntyre was the President and founder of Northwest Exploration Company Limited and a director of its parent company, Northwest Explorations Inc. When Northwest Explorations Inc. was taken over in 1998 by CGX Resources Inc. to form the oil and gas exploration company CGX Energy Inc., McIntyre ceased being a director. McIntyre was a strategic advisor for CGX in 2000 through 2003.[9]
McIntyre is a former mining executive; prior to 2003 he was an officer or director of several small public mineral exploration companies.
[/QUOTE]
**Please note he works for an oil and gas exploration company. **
So I ask you again you dishonest shill, who do you work for and can you think for yourself?
Jim
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Applause. This is a very solid post, and a plan that I wish I had thought of myself. I’m jealous.
[/QUOTE]
Yer shittin’ me. A semi-lefty like myself and you agreeing on something? Is that a sign of the apocalypse or that we need to be on the Unity '08 ticket?