Strangely enough, he doesn’t like Gore or Obama either. How odd.
Ahh, too bad, he had a glass jaw.
I have to make the comment that virtually all the deniers we have encountered lately have cranked up the racism and hate side of them. It is looking to be a basic standard issue with climate change deniers. IMHO this the result of the concentration of very loud voices that in reality are losing support were it matters (science groups and academia) and also losing support in the political arena. (They still have huge Republican support but I think Neil deGrasse Tyson is correct that this will not last).
What I’m saying here is that there were already a few racists in the climate denier camp, but when smarter conservatives stop denying the science and get turn off by the prejudice then the only ones remaining are the ones that not only deny science but are also mostly racists.
As the evidence has piled up even Republican scientists and smarter Republicans are turning moderate or go as independent because the republican base has gone really anti-science. Xenophobia and prejudice is coming to be a part of the science denial kit regardless of how nonsensical that attachment is.
The Southern Poverty Law Center is more correct nowadays on the unholy alliance that climate change deniers are making with racists and nativists.
Did I ever mention that my background also includes social studies and history? I only moonlight as a science buff. So besides “training for boxing with palookas” what fascinates me more is the social study and physiology of the deniers of science. Lots of important clues can be gained by looking at the sources they depend for information.
Mmm, Psychology not Physiology, darn browser dictionary…
Although I should say in the pit that I dislike the denier’s guts.
I didn’t want to stress you by trying to teach you too many words at once. We’ll do “opinion” in the next lesson. But hey, if you know enough words maybe you could read this Introduction to Climate Change for Children all by yourself. Seriously – you’d actually learn stuff and might eventually know as much as a third-grader.
True, but that’s not saying much. One should have at least some standards.
I hate to speak ill of the dearly departed (well, not really), but FX was a flat-out troll. Whether he was a good one depends on what posts you look at and it especially depends on whether one looks at them in context over time. He was certainly annoying, but anyone can be annoying – being a good troll means being annoying while seeming to be genuine. I believe we currently have one or two in circulation.
Among his weaknesses as a troll:
-
He’d underestimate his audience and say totally outrageous things expecting not to have them exposed and be called out on them. They were, and he was. To his credit, he adapted and tried to become more subtle. It didn’t work.
-
He’d make claims at different times that were mutually contradictory. One of the most flagrant ones was claiming that water vapor wasn’t a feedback, followed up by a long rant right here in the Pit that it couldn’t be a feedback because if it was we’d have runaway climate change (because science!). Then later just calmly going on that of course it was a feedback, and then later still that not only was it a feedback, it was a negative feedback! Also that the earth is no longer warming, but then again, it is, but not from CO2. And offering different competing explanations at different times. Or climate change itself was either piously described as possibly the most important challenge facing mankind, or else a complete hoax, depending on who he was talking to and when. A good troll should at least understand that posts, once made, are permanent, and that people have memories, too.
-
He’d intentionally misrepresent scientific papers and even individual charts and figures in ways that were so egregious that there’s no way simple stupidity could account for it or that anyone would be stupid enough to fall for it, and even if they were, usually the author’s own words would be enough to discredit his claim. He apparently believed that his standard mantra of “it’s right there, anyone can read it / anyone can see it” would be convincing. It wasn’t, mainly because people did read it and look at it and no one saw what he did.
-
When he was called out on gross scientific inaccuracies or outright lies, he’d ignore the criticism and hope it went away. If it didn’t, he’d try to slime out of it with tricks of language, claiming that he did or did not use specific words, or that he tried but failed to Google some specific phrase, and therefore that concept didn’t exist (even when my version of Google, which apparently has stronger Google-fu, found thousands of hits on even the exact phrase in question). In fact these linguistic tricks were one of his signature trolling techniques.
If his purpose was to be annoying, he certainly succeeded in that respect, and I actually kept a list of his lies and distortions and especially enjoyed it when I could highlight the obvious inconsistencies, putting up his contradictory and/or ludicrously incorrect statements that were each made with the same condescending pseudo-scientific pomposity.
Do you have a problem with using the term “ppm”, or do you just have some kind of fetish about typing a lot of zeroes? Is there something about zeroes that remind you of your childhood or your mother, or what?
Wait! I just noticed something. The amount of CO2 in the air is apparently very, very small. All those zeroes! Obviously nothing in such tiny quantities could possibly have any effect on climate. I never realized it before. Thank you, Mr. Doorknob, I now see how stupid I’ve been, believing in this climate change stuff. And I went to college and everything!
I read an article that came out a couple of days ago and was reminded of my participation in that climate change thread, essentially saying what I said at the time. I read it on a science news website whose only bias or agenda seems to be the advancement of science and human understanding. (I read up about the parent company which owns the website, to see if they weren’t owned by some known political organization)
A while back in the original thread, I made a point about how global warming increases snow fall in regions where it’s usually too cold for there to be much snow fall, areas which are considered deserts like antarctica, where yes, the snow that does fall should stay there pretty much all year round.
Closer to the freezing point, you’re going to get a lot more snow melt, evaporation, and wetter air. Further away from the freezing point, the water stays solid and generally doesn’t move around as much. That’s why heavier snowfalls in certain regions like the eastern united states and antarctica in certain parts of the calendar year indicate warming, not cooling. Because snow fall is not an indicator that the earth is getting colder, and things aren’t as simple as “there’s a snowball in my hand, global warming is disproved!”
You might notice something like this if you’ve ever owned a freezer, small or otherwise. You leave the freezer alone, and all the water inside the freezer will settle, and you won’t get a large accumulation of ice. But, you open and close the freezer, thereby bringing in warmer and (more importantly) wetter air, and soon there will be an accumulation of ice. So you have to defrost the freezer.
That’s just one small example of how warmer and wetter air can lead to things like **increasing **ice, which is that thing that snow is made of, believe it or not.
I had to go over this point many, many times, and due to a dedicated desire to never absorb any new information, the point was ignored. Yet, I didn’t pull this idea out of my ass, and it is something you can observe with your own two eyes. It perfectly predicts and describes the behavior of water near freezing, above freezing, and significantly below freezing, in wetter air, and drier air.
It’s not even that complicated. It’s just how water behaves. Something that any jackass making comments about the snowfall should think about before opening their flippin’ mouth about how it must be because it’s getting colder. Because cold obviously equals snow, because in my simplistic mind, it’s always colder than my own body temperature when there’s snow out, therefore I equate snow with cold.
Why is Antarctica a desert, then?
In this article that’s written for a person with cognitive abilities which aren’t quite fully developed yet, so it should be easy for everyone to follow, it says that there isn’t a whole lot of rain or snow fall in Antarctica. And Antarctica is way colder than places like New Hampshire. Much colder, and much drier.
Now, hold on to your beanies, but if the globe… were to experience a general sort of warming, then the air in places like Antarctica, would get slightly warmer, and possibly a bit wetter, due to increasing evaporation across the region, enough to trigger snowfall more often, and in heavier concentrations. And along with that increased snowfall, there would also be increased melting as well. Maybe not even enough to counterbalance the increased snowfall, and some parts of Antarctica will actually *gain *more snow than it loses, considering it is still the coldest place on earth, despite the warming.
Really tough concepts. I know. Minds blown. :rolleyes:
Whereas, on *other *parts of the globe, parts where it is already comparatively a lot warmer, with increasing warming it will melt more than it will gain in snow and ice, and thus, glaciers will go bye-bye. The arctic ice will retreat since it is sitting in warmer ocean water, rather than on a rocky continent (Wow what a concept) which will insulate snow from temperature changes better. It will snow more in certain regions, but that snow will *melt *more quickly in the calendar year, and the rest of the year it will be slightly warmer.
You see, you can connect the dots for people from A to B to C, but if their brain only understands that cold is what snow is, therefore, more snow must mean it’s getting colder. And no matter how much education is introduced into this brain, it only understands that snow is cold, and more snow means more cold.
:smack:
Thus, you get global warming deniers who cite snowfall as evidence that global warming is bullshit. Because their brains haven’t developed enough to understand concepts more complicated than snow is cold, therefore cold must mean snow.
The really sad part is that they don’t understand their own ignorance, because the less someone knows, the more they seem to think anyone who disagrees with them must be wrong, so they try to take the little bit of knowledge they have, being that snow is cold, and use it to educate smarter and more educated persons than themselves.
Or maybe they’re just boring trolls with nothing better to do than troll about the climate. I don’t know. All I know is that I tried to show an open mind evidence which does not lead to the conclusion that more snow equals more cold, and it did not work, because the mind was not open to new information or other ideas.
Snow is cold. That trumps all logic, evidence, nuance, or scientific consensus, or implication that there’s more to it than that. Cold is an absolute, it’s one of the fundamental universal constants. We say it’s cold out, we don’t measure in degrees.
The really scary part is dunces who can only grasp the concept that snow is cold, and can’t think beyond that or their brain hurts, end up attempting to speak for all the rest of us.
Or bringing snowballs to the floor of the United states Senate, truly believing that this was the evidence he needed to finally put this whole climate business to bed.
:rolleyes:
I’m reminded of Louis C.K.'s bit about Pig Newtons. It takes a psychotic amount of confidence and arrogance to think that you personally know more about a truly complicated thing, than the actual scientists and experts, and that you can dispel all their silly notions just by stating your stupid opinion, only with a little more emphasis this time.
“No, Daddy, those are called PIG NEWTONS! You don’t know!”
Despite the fact that they taste like figs and it says Fig Newton right there on the packaging, those must be called pig newtons.
No, scientists. There’s no such thing as global warming! See! I have snow in my hands! Obviously, that means the world is as cold as this snow, and cold is an absolute, temperature isn’t measured in degrees after all.
I don’t know why most of them end up being Republicans, because I tend to find that stupidity knows no political affiliation. I have met some fine dumbasses who believe a lot of things that I believe. I think stupid people can’t tell the difference between a dumb idea and a smart idea, so they simply pick a political philosophy at random, or absorb their political alignment based on whatever happens to be popular in their locale, much like how many people end up choosing their religious identity- hey, whatever is the most popular idea in their general vicinity must be correct. Critical thinking would take too much effort.
But, you’ll get more professional climate change deniers working for the Republican party, because many industries and corporate interests know that they can fund candidates whose only contribution to the intellectual fabric of mankind include Jesus is good, war spending is good, and the gay is bad. And those people will be too stupid or corrupt to say no to free money in exchange for being a useful idiot.
And some of those idiots do like to insist that they’re called pig newtons on this very board designed to fight that sort of ignorance.
Fighting ignorance involves letting go of a little pride, and that’s hard, because the most prideful people often think there’s something special or remarkable about themselves which is why they’re so proud of themselves, and they’re too stupid to understand that they’re truly unremarkable, particularly when it comes to things like intellect. So obviously, a proud but unremarkable intellect cannot let go of ideas they consider precious, and all their ideas are precious, even though they didn’t think of any of those ideas on their own, they’re just parroting from a conservative blogger or newsman who has zero understanding of climate science, much like themselves.
I know personally that I have not studied climate science. I am curious about it, and want to know what the actual experts say, and why they say it, and also, *who *is considered an expert, or what is considered a real source. I might be able to say “I’m not a scientist” but at least I will defer to what the actual scientists who study the field, and what the latest, best, and most objective data says. Of course, some things are obvious enough, and you can see with your own eyes, like the behavior of moisture in the air at various temperatures, including but not limited to snow. It’s not that difficult to grasp, and the lay person should be able to understand it, but it’s still too tricky for some. That would involve leaving behind infantile oversimplicities like “snow is cold” and actually using some critical thinking. But we know this will never happen.
(post shortened, underline added)
And you thought we couldn’t agree on something.
I don’t mind making “0” with my keyboard. You like making “p”. To each their own, I guess.
Are you saying the numbers are wrong, or does that form hurt your feelings?
If that’s the best you can do, that’s the best you can do. But how is that going to help convince the skeptics to believe your version of man-made-CO2-global-warming?
You may not yet be aware of it, but that is what you need to do if you intend to convince more people of the evils of man-made CO2. And you do need to convince more people.
There is no need for you to convince the true believers. They already believe. Attempting to insult people because they find your claims unbelievable isn’t going to convince them that you’re claims are believable.
(post shortened)
Hahahaha. When is doubt, claim racism. :rolleyes: That will surely boost the believability of your tactics. You’re a hoot.
Why is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), currently refusing to turn over documents related to NOAA reports?
Are NOAA reports considered a matter of national security? Is NOAA a privately owned corporation or a tax funded agency? Is NOAA afraid to allow the public to see exactly how they’ve been “creating” their reports? Will this denial of access make the man-made-CO2-is-evil zealots seem more, or less, believable to the voters/public? Is it OK to hide taxpayer-funded information from the public?
*Washington, D.C. – Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) today sent a letter to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Administrator Kathryn Sullivan responding to the agency’s unjustified refusal to provide the Committee with documents related to the agency’s decision to alter historical climate data. After three letters requesting these documents, Chairman Smith issued a subpoena on October 13th to obtain communications related to NOAA’s decision.
“To date, you have neither produced all documents responsive to the subpoena, nor invoked a valid legal privilege to justify withholding them,” Chairman Smith wrote. “Your failure to comply with the Committee’s subpoena has delayed the Committee’s investigation and thwarted the Committee’s constitutional obligation to conduct oversight of the Executive Branch. Furthermore, your failure to comply with a duly issued subpoena may expose you to civil and/or criminal enforcement mechanisms.”
Although NOAA failed to provide the Committee with any justification for withholding documents, a NOAA spokeswoman was quoted in the media saying that the agency’s “internal communications are confidential and not related to what Smith is trying to find out.” As such, NOAA reportedly does not intend to provide the Committee with communications.*
*Congressman now threatens to subpoena commerce secretary over global warming report -
In a second letter in less than a week to Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker, Smith urged her to pressure NOAA to comply with his subpoena for internal communications. Smith says whistleblowers have come forward with new information on the climate study’s path to publication in June.The study refuted claims that global warming had “paused” or slowed over the past decade, undercutting a popular argument used by those who refute the scientific consensus that man-made pollution is behind global warming.
The research, considered a bombshell in the climate change debate, set off alarms among skeptics. Smith, a prominent congressional skeptic, claimed that scientists manipulated data to advance President Obama’s agenda and timed the study’s release to coincide with the administration’s new limits on emissions from coal plants.
He is seeking NOAA’s internal communications and e-mails among its researchers, and in October subpoenaed Administrator Kathryn Sullivan for the documents. But she has refused to turn them over, saying that deliberative communications between scientists should be protected.*
It just makes you become an obfuscate climate change denier. And fact checkers already noticed that boiler plate denier move.
Just saying that you are such an ignorant that you are not even aware when others note your bad faith tactics, you are so deluded that you do not even notice when you should have your feelings hurt.
Sure it will, because you only demonstrated to all that you were not aware of the recently banned Renaissance Man.
And really, many of our resident scientific racists did follow the same footsteps of combining hate for minorities with hate of climate change scientists. (It is interesting to note that a few climate change scientists are Jews, and I do think that a lot of the hate is not just coming from just plain ignorance, but anti-semitism too)
Because ignorants like you already showed that they only are capable of stupid cherry picking of statements when they a hold of the scientists e-mails.
History already showed how dishonest the deniers were when they got a hold of hacked e-mails.
And as our own The Bad Astronomer can tell you, you are just falling for the denier trash from the elected Republicans.
So, yeah, they are lying to you, but you just be a good coward and never demand from your congress critters to be better than just to be tools for the fossil fuel industry.
doorhinge, as has been pointed out, you’re really really bad at climate trolling. You just keep repeating the same stupid stuff over and over again. You’ve made it amply clear that you yourself can’t be “convinced,” no matter how overwhelming the evidence, because your opinions are based entirely on your own blinkered politics (like pretty much all climate deniers).
When you’ve shown that you don’t have the capacity to be “convinced,” the only thing that remains is to insult you.
If that’s the best you can do, that’s the best you can do. How’s that workin’ out for ya? Has it made your tactics any more believable?
Your side doesn’t have the votes to make man-made-CO2-is-evil laws the law of the planet. Maybe by the time COP 25 rolls around, you’ll figure out how to convince people to believe in you? Maybe not?
Was his banning a big moment in your life? 
Would you like a moment alone?
(post shortened)
Hahahaha. You just can’t seem to comprehend the fact that the voters haven’t fully accepted your version of man-made-C02-is-evil and instead choose to elect representatives that you don’t approve of. I’m shocked. Shocked. That you can’t figure out a way to convince more people that your version of man-made-C02-is-evil is the believable version. But I’m rooting for you.
Go GIGObuster!
C’mon, doorhinge, this is pathetic and boring. Like I said, you’re not even a good troll.
Sounds like Vizzini before finding that he was had.
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
I can’t be happy like you just by seeking to get the support for the same voters type of voters that go for creationism and bigotry, if you are not shocked by going to bed with them the problem is not mine.
And no, the banning of a racist denier that also demonstrated that I’m more correct that before is not a big moment in my life, as usual you are deluded on what you think others are going for.
doorhinge isn’t smart enough to have his own bad faith tactics. He has to borrow them.
Vizzini committed the Third Classic Blunder: “Never enter into a contest that your enemy has designed and prepared.”
So has doorhinge, and worse yet, he chose science for an enemy.
The bizarre thing about you is that what you choose to try to needle people about is the fact that other people are just as stupid as you are. You really are utterly pathetic.
Yep; he just does not have the intellectual depth to participate effectively in this discussion.
Which means he (doorhinge, that is, not Vizzini) also fell victim to the FOURTH Classic Blunder.