How did you become a PROfessional? Do you have a lot of experience posting at different boards without them knowing what a fool you are? Are you actually paid to hide the fact that you’re a fool? Are you a member of the Court Jesters local 000?
You have no way of knowing this but it was Madeleine Thomas who associated Camille Parmesan with Al Gore.
In your universe, are research experts in the field of climate science and “man-made-CO2-is-evil zealots” the same thing?
Because that seems to be the only way that science deniers can manage to justify their persistence in dismissing and ignoring the findings of actual scientists. Just pretend that all the people who are saying things you don’t want to hear are extremist “zealots” instead of knowledgeable researchers who understand far more about climate science than you ever will.
(post shortened)
I said it was ground-breaking. You even quoted the post where I said “ground-breaking”. :smack:
Whoever is reading these posts to you is doing a terrible job.
What the hell difference would it make if all Republicans did believe in global warming?
This issue seems to be more about demonizing Republicans than anything else…
Global warming has been happening for a really, really long time. Since that last ice age.
You have no way of knowing this, but the voters have been electing their congress critters to represent, are you ready for this, the majority of voters. If you wish to claim that the elected representatives aren’t actually representing their constituents, you’ll probably be surprised to learn that the Democrats lost control of both the U.S. House and Senate because the voters didn’t like their agenda. :eek:
Your chosen method of trying to create an consensus among the voters seems to consist primarily of trying to bully, shout down, and name-call those who disagree with you or find the UN/IPCC projections to be unbelievable. That method doesn’t seem to be very effective. Keep up the good work.
They’d stop denying and obstructing scientific findings about climate change, for one thing.
Democrats are certainly not perfect when it comes to being rational and intelligent about science and public policy issues, but these days on average they’re doing a hell of a lot better than Republicans.
The Republican Party in general has made up its mind that it will appeal more strongly to its constituency with a strategy of ignorance, distrust and resentment than by actually engaging with facts. They have successfully marketed the conviction that it’s irrelevant to know or understand what the science actually says, as long as you can cling to the illusion of feeling superior by randomly mocking the scientists.
(post shortened)
Is reality a second language for you? The dictionary is your friend.
*ZEALOT
noun [C]
› a person who has very strong opinions about something, and tries to make other people have them too:
a religious zealot*
Do these research experts have very strong opinions about something? Are these research experts trying to make other people have them too.
You’re apparently confused about the difference between Milankovitch cycles and anthropogenic carbon emissions. The long-term periodic changes in the earth’s orbit that ultimately drive the cycles of ice ages, glaciation and interglacial periods aren’t sufficient to account for the increasing warming observed in the last several decades.
It always astonishes me how cavalierly many people, who in other contexts seem to have a fairly good grasp of basic notions of cause and effect, take it for granted that when it comes to climate change, any old half-assed explanation will do even if it doesn’t cover the facts.
That’s kind of like saying that if your checking account balance suddenly starts decreasing by fifty dollars a day via a series of mysterious withdrawals that you didn’t authorize, you shouldn’t worry about it because your account balance periodically fluctuates over time anyway as you receive paychecks and pay bills.
If you were losing fifty dollars a day through withdrawals you weren’t responsible for, you wouldn’t just say “oh well, my account periodically loses money to bill payment anyway so never mind”, you’d investigate the anomaly. If anybody tried to persuade you that all balance decreases are essentially the same thing and must all be due to the same source so the anomaly is nothing to worry about, you’d call that person a willfully ignorant idiot. And you’d be right.
Yet many science deniers seem to have absolutely no qualms about being that kind of willfully ignorant idiot when they’re talking about observed climate data instead of observed bank balances. They see a phenomenon that needs explanation, and they blithely assume they can explain it by cherry-picking whatever proposed cause they find convenient, completely irrespective of whether it’s scientifically adequate to explain the phenomenon.
[QUOTE=doorhinge]
Your chosen method of trying to create an consensus among the voters seems to consist primarily of trying to bully, shout down, and name-call those who disagree with you or find the UN/IPCC projections to be unbelievable.
[/QUOTE]
It isn’t bullying, shouting down or name-calling to point out that people who rely on their personal gut instincts about “believability” when dealing with complex scientific topics that they don’t understand are acting out of ignorance and foolish complacency.
A lot of scientific facts seem “unbelievable” to the average ignorant layperson. That doesn’t mean that they’re not true. Nor does it mean that the average ignorant layperson’s opinion about them is comparable to that of a knowledgeable scientist.
What these research experts have is substantial detailed knowledge about something. Knowledge which they are trying to explain to other people.
Do you think that there’s no important difference between opinions and knowledge?
Or that if you don’t happen to like the facts that a more knowledgeable person is stating to you, you can make the facts go away by relabeling them “opinion”?
Generally in English the construction “No one said it was…” is read as “No one [before you mentioned it] said it was…” It’s a common usage that most English speakers will understand the implied phrase.
It’s used to call out fallacies of strawmen, reductio ad absurdium, oversimplification, and so on.
Then you are aware that I did say ground-breaking. I think that’s grand.
For historical reference -
(post shortened)
For historical reference -
But are they zealots? Would it be correct to say that they are zealots? Would you agree that they are persons who have very strong opinions about something, and try to make other people have them too?
(post shortened)
But who are you still trying to convince that man-made CO2 is evil? You need these alleged “average ignorant layperson’s” to believe your story. Insulting them doesn’t seem to be working.
He’s not confused, he just doesn’t care.
Well, you’ve ruled out doorhinge right there.
No.
[QUOTE=doorhinge]
Would it be correct to say that they are zealots?
[/quote]
No.
You might as well try to claim that scientists are also by definition “prophets” because one definition of “prophet” is “one who foretells future events”.
It’s not an insult to call somebody ignorant about science if in fact they are ignorant about science.
And what the world “needs” with respect to climate science is for scientifically ignorant laypersons to confront their own ignorance honestly, and either take steps to remedy it or admit openly that they are not qualified to have an informed opinion about the science.
Not for them to sulk about being “insulted” when somebody mentions the fact that they’re scientifically ignorant. Or to pretend that scientific understanding is basically a quid pro quo where they’ll agree to “believe” the scientists’ “story”, as long as the scientists stroke their egos enough.
Scientific facts are fundamentally different from consumer goods like new soda flavors or designer athletic shoes. Consumers are fully entitled to act like petulant demanding brats who can refuse to pay attention to the new product if the marketers don’t tempt and coddle and flatter them as much as they’d like. Citizens, on the other hand, have a fundamental responsibility to engage rationally with scientific facts even when they’re uncomfortable to think about and unflattering to the ego.
She mentioned only the connection they have to the novel peace price, nothing about getting depressed for it or the connection.
Still just grasping at stupid straws doorhinge.
The Republicans demonized themselves by getting in bed with the fossil fuel industry.
As the Frontline documentary shows, it is clear that a lot of the Republicans being elected get a lot of support from the fossil fuel industry. The industry does not care about the woo woo the Republicans follow they only care that the ones getting in power also ignore what even the Republicans do think it should be done.
You are 70 years late among the scientists, scientific groups and academics, and a few years late regarding the super majorities (including now the Democrats and independents , not just Republicans)
As I mentioned before the weakest link is among the currently elected Republicans.
So that is the current situation, the current Republicans in power do not care about what the people wants, and the disconnect is also showing in the states:
The people are convinced, but it is clearly the propaganda and the corporate media (that it is not liberal indeed) has not talked much about it, and even less about the disconnect that it is happening between moderate republicans and independents. (This subject also interests me as my background is social studies, but even scientists of the SDMB have told me that I do understand climate science)
Al Gore invented global warming. Right after he invented the internet.
…and then what?
People would suddenly stop driving? Stop using energy?
Get real, nothing is going to change.
Everyone believes in gravity, yet nothing has been done to prevent people from falling!
Everyone believes in the Theory of Relativity, yet no time machines!