I had one years back, after my son was born. My only complaint was the curtain across my belly (guess they didn’t want me backseat driving). Mind you, walking was interesting for few days…
I now return you to your regularly scheduled pitting.
IMHO, the statements don’t really contradict one another, because they don’t both address the same question.
The following gets a little subtle, and I hope I execute it gracefully. There are two questions that can be argued:
1.) Has man-made global warming been sufficiently proven as being the hypothesis that best accounts for the amounts of meteorological, climatological, and environmental data that have been gathered?
2.) Has scientific consensus been reached that the first question is reliably answerable?
Now, possible answers to 1.) would be: a.) yes, because of scientific evidence A, B, and C; b.) no, because of scientific evidence X, Y, and Z; and c.) the question does not have any reliable answer, because not enough good science has been accomplished.
Possible answers to 2.) would be a.) yes, scientific consensus has been reached to make the question answerable; and, b.) no, there is no consensus within the scientific community to reliably answer the question.
It is probably helpful to emphasize that these are not the same question. But in his analogy, Rush is (disingenuously, IMO) pretending that people who respond to 1.) and 2.) with answer 1.) a.) and 2.) a.), respectively are really only offering answer 2.) a.) in response to question 1.)
Now it is not the case that the only function that answering question 2.) can serve is to either eliminate 1.) c.) as a possible answer, or to make 1.) c.) the actual answer to 1.)
No, question 2.) can also (in the right unscrupulous hands) serve as a distraction from the fact that the answer to question 1.) has been given as a.) yes, because of scientific evidence A, B, and C
Further complicating the messiness of the analogy is that the scientific community comprises people who are trained in the scientific method, and can be counted on to conduct their inquiries in an honest and above-board fashion (if only because they all know that their rivals are watching and waiting for any opportunity to exploit a perceived vulnerability). The so-called “consensus” of Limbaugh listeners, OTOH, is largely composed of people who think of the Rush Limbaugh show as a dandy place to get their news of the nation and of the world.*
One of the above processes tends to be self-correcting, reducing the overall amount of error that gets out into the scientific gene pool, so to speak. The other has a great capacity to be error-enhancing, resulting in ever-greater amounts of garbage data going into the world.
*This may seem like a cheap shot, and I freely admit that it is. I maintain that it is also a direct hit. 
Actually isn’t that pretty much what it means, when one calls a proposition “obvious”? Or even “pretty obvious”?
Yes, he does. In his world, politeness is weakness. Treat an adversary as an equal, and you may as well be wearing a tutu.
Always gotta be the BSD.
Scylla, or Limbaugh?
Well that whole GD thread was a giant waste of time. Why the hell can’t people just get to the fucking point instead of being so condescending to their audience that they feel they have to lead them around by the nose?
Either respect your audience enough to state your point plainly or shut up.
Authority? None other than my own voice.
I read the first page of the GD thread, and satirical or not, I couldn’t figure out just what Scylla was doing besides trying to get people worked up. If that’s all he was trying to do, he was trolling.
In the Pit, it’s legal for non-mod posters to level accusations of trollery.
It seemed to be the question that wanted asking in the GD thread, but couldn’t be asked there.
And I think Orbifold’s post here indicates that I’m not the only one who perceived Scylla as playing games in the original thread.
Can’t say I was upset by Scylla’s thread; I mean, to a large extent, it was Scylla being Scylla, feinting and dodging, throwing up smoke then retreating, than arguing a point head-on. But if you’re getting posters riled up by doing so, and you know you’re getting posters riled up by doing so…you get the idea.
And now that we know Scylla was drawing an analogy between a weak popular ‘consensus’ for Rush’s acceptance as the best news source, and a near-unanimous consensus among articles in the relevant scholarly journals, with their more rigorous standards of debate, I really can’t say I’m sorry I punctured his balloon. How many times, here and elsewhere, have we poked holes in this particular analogy already? It’s the sort of thing you see in Prickly City, fercryinoutloud.
Because we could’ve dispensed with the entirety of the first page of the original thread, if it had been clear from the beginning just what consensus Scylla was drawing his subterranean analogy with.
Maybe Scylla meant well, but at least for that first page, the effect was awfully similar to what it would have been if he hadn’t.
Observe: cheery and whimsical joking around as the bait, and then, the heart-wrenching punchline. How could anyone criticize Scylla? He’s a victim!
RedFury, you stepped right into that one. Don’t apologize, though - it was a setup.
Trolling, I dunno. I figure it’s just a joke that’s being dragged well beyond whatever limited value it started with. I suggest either ignoring it, or playing along by contributing even more ridiculous claims about Limbaugh.
The reality of Rush Limbaugh…a conservative icon who at the same time is a thrice-divorced college dropout whose prescription drug addiction quite likely lost him his hearing…is ridiculous enough.
Welcome to the exciting new age of rhetoric popularized by Scylla’s very own inspiration, Rush Limbaugh. It’s part condescension, part audience infantilization, and partly the abhorrent vacuum of dead air that lies between commercials, which needs to be filled at all times by some kind of blather even when there’s nothing worth talking about.
Rush’s audience share vindicates this method, apparently, so it’s unsurprising that his disciples would seek to apply it to make their own points (or at least, to echo Limbaugh’s) in other media.
Too bad that in print, lacking the benefit of Rush’s “wit” and stentorian voice, it reads like a far-right Mr. Rogers making a floundering attempt at Socratic irony.
Ok I’ll admit I got carried away a little, but it’s understandable considering your froth-speckled post that inspired it.
You honestly think that any offspring Scylla has will be like a storm-trooper clone and have the same level of w/e? I know people get many ideologies from parents, but dont you think you’re overstepping rationality here?
Even if your argument is true, suggesting somebody should not produce because they possess a different political stance than you is downright despicable.
As per your insult, dont worry. Licking dingleberries is sooo 2006.
Autolycos,
Yeah, I admit I, myself, was rather hot under the collar last night. Not only due to the sheer stupidity of Scylla’s thread but because he insulted me as well for replying in serious fashion to what I thought was a legitimate OP.
But that’s no excuse for wishing him (or his family) ill in any fashion – and I don’t. Again I only agreed with what he’d already decided to do…with some further invective thrown-in. However, after finding out the reasons for said decision I am well aware I was out of line. Thus my sincere and unconditional apologies to him, Zoe and yourself.
Lastly, no, I don’t expect Scylla’s offspring to turn-out clones of the old-man. Though I suppose they could do worse. For when he’s not in full wingnut-mode/regalia as he appeared to be last night, he’s rather a charming and intelligent individual,
Doesn’t mean he he wouldn’t benefit from a few weeks enrollment at Jane Fonda’s re-education Camp…as my pinko commie compañero, 'luc would say. 
As for “licking dingleberries” being passe, would you mind getting this old man up to speed on what’s effective invective circa '07?
Take care.
For some reason, “so’s your old man!” comes to mind. I think it might be a bit dated though.
I don’t think GD is the appropriate place for roundabout, deliberately unclear elbow-in-the-ribs OPs, especially not when you are coy and snidely insulting going on from there. I don’t know if that’s the legal definition of trolling, but it sure the heck is being a dick.
Seems to me it was a round about, deliberately unclear elbow in the ribs OP that did in december.
Sometimes, direct is better. and I’d suggest that if it took all this to get the ‘straight story’ about your OP, that’s something to be looked at, Scyllla.
The criticism and junior-modding directed at me from a given poster seems to vary inversely with their agreement with my politics. I’ve come to regard this as SOP. I note that neither Frank nore Tomndeb gave any indication of a foul, and unless or until I receive official criticism, I will keep my own counsel.
It doesn’t appear so in this thread. and certainly has not been our history, or at least so I thought.