That’s “anti-science lunatic, bitch!” to you, mister.
“Narcing” is, in fact, exactly what the mods say they want you to do. But then, you knew reporting my post wouldn’t likely get you very far. So it was just posting to get a rise out of me, as all junior modding really is. So some sort of…goblining, if you will. No, wait, … gnoming? Ogreing? Tip of my tongue…
You know this is seriously cutting into my reputation as a paid shill for the fossil fuel industry.
Who can, by the way, suck my balls.
Telling me what the Mods want me to do, that is like, umm, I don’t know, you are acting like a Mod.
I bet there is a catchy name for that. When you act like a Mod … but you are not a Mod
No, I’m telling you what the mods said they want you to do. I’m not telling you to do it, just passing on the info. Since you seemingly had your head up your own ass every time they’ve asked us to pretty-please just report posts.
Oh, it’s like if you were quoting from the rules the Mods wrote for us! Like I did!
I can’t help it. Every time I see the name MrDibble I chuckle. Because I misread it as Mr Dribble.
Nope - not quoting any rules at all. Just telling you what the mods said they prefer. Not telling you to do it. Wouldn’t want to turn you into a “narc”:rolleyes:
You read usernames about as well as you read science papers, then.
An easy mistake, FXMasterbater.
Is there any evidence that there even are any (secret) paid shills for the fossil fuel industry? It seems very unlikely to me.
I know that there’s a fair bit of fossil-fuel funding for organizations and pundits/researchers that avowedly deny or disparage AGW hypotheses, but I find it hard to believe that any anonymous individuals are getting paid actual money to put on their denialist batsuits and roam the internet seeking to troll science.
When anonymous individuals get paid actual money to shill for something, as in social media mercenary campaigns or various focus-group/viral marketing strategies, there’s generally some evidence or information about it that filters through in popular media. It doesn’t seem plausible that a cadre of undercover climate-denial mercenaries would operate in complete secrecy with nobody spilling the beans or leaving a paper trail.
No, I suspect that all the ill-informed anti-science blather we see from anonymous/pseudonymous individuals online is a self-sustaining, strictly volunteer phenomenon. A lot of people just like to feel that their cynical wisdom and/or clear-eyed skepticism gives them exceptional insight even into subjects whose technical content they don’t understand at all.
So they pick up a few superficial talking points from denialist popularizations and gleefully broadcast them around the internet, just for the pleasure of feeling superior to all the “sheeple” who are “dumb” enough to take the findings of research scientists seriously. Why should anybody pay them for what they’re perfectly willing to do for free?
Useful idiots, if you will.
It doesn’t seem plausible that any super wealthy person or company would spend any money at all paying anyone to post in the Pit. And yet right here in this darn thread we see people discussing it like it’s a fact.
If you ever see me using talking points from denialist popularizations please bitch slap me.
I hate them denialist popularizations even more than I hate the fossil fuel companies.
Fox News has in the past made its staffers work as sockpuppets on various websites: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/10/20/fox-news-reportedly-used-fake-commenter-account/196509
But you knew that.
No, I did not. But that is far different than simply paying some idiot to post on message boards to pimp your business or ideals.
Fuck, I wish somebody would pay me to type out stupid shit. I could be a goddamn billionaire.
That reminds me of the fake Wikipedia accounts used to constantly try to slant articles there.
Honest self-assessment is a beautiful thing. 
Yabbut, that’s one employer requiring its own salaried employees to spam their corporate message on the interwebs.
That seems much more practically feasible (if not much more honest or intelligent) than a whole industry’s PR machine recruiting random keyboard warriors to shill for a particular anti-science viewpoint. It also seems like it would be easier to keep that sort of in-house setup a secret, at least temporarily.
As in, “anti-science lunatic, bitch, stupid person, et cetera”?
Without changing a thing.
That statement wasn’t directed at wolfpup, rather those who repeat him without understanding. Water is THE mechanic for atmospheric warming in one hell of a lot more than just Greenhouse Effect. My argument has always been that carbon dioxide is secondary at best as a mechanic accelerated by men-folk. This is based on the ice core data as it demonstrates a sharp increase in carbon dioxide at about 130,000 years ago, clearly when human-kind had NO contribution. We have to know why that happened, or anything we say about burning fossil fuel’s contribution is speculative.
The routine physics concept of carbon dioxide feedback does violate this principle of thermodynamics. It just doesn’t transfer near enough of the total energy, about 26% is all. If you want to focus on carbon dioxide, you still have to state where the other 74% of the total energy is … or you’re violating the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. An engineer posted a correction to my claims of violating the 2nd Law, opps, my bad.
I wonder about your understanding of science in the general sense, how is questioning a scientific claim “anti-science”. Dude, this is required for proper scientific discourse, or do you think anything published is peer review publications is indisputable?
Water’s feedback mechanism is pervasive in ALL understanding of basic meteorology, and it is the very first thing taught to the student. At 2.1 J/g, we have a pretty good chunk of energy moving around in the water vapor, and it cannot be ignored in any of the various cases. An understanding of either climate studies and dynamics requires competence in this feedback, hardly unremarkable.
Gigo Close, but no cigar … a Joule is the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of one gram of air one degree Kelvin. There’s other ways to define this value, but in this context, we don’t need to throw out that integral. We’re dealing with average values, not instantaneous values. My point I’m trying to make is some of us accept your statements as being given in good faith … and thank you for including the link to back up your statements … but PLEASE stop with the extended quotes … we can follow the link ourselves if we dispute you.