or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Leftist Hate Speech
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Leftist Hate Speech - Page 2

post #41 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

There is nothing in your post that needs countering, as it's been countered already, for decades even.

It needs to be countered for the very fact that it exists and could misinform people - that is reason enough alone to counter it. Otherwise, people will read my post, then your post, and conclude that I have a greater point to make than you who did not respond with level headed argument with links and counterpoints to even consider.

The fight against ignorance is continual and will be never ending for as long as humans exist. If you get tired of defending, step aside and let someone else take your place. Otherwise, defend it in an intellectual way, not sweeping stuff aside.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

See my above edited post, then search PO, and my screen name, and you will find plenty of verbiage on said CO2/carbon cycle.

Nothing has changed since my previous posts, except that CO2 and sea levels appear to be increasing at rates greater than predicted in the 2007 IPCC AR4 WG1 report.

I did a search and read through some of your posts and links. Because it *does* seem to me from your links and posts in other topics that you have a higher level of understanding of this climate change topic than I do, I concede the point to you franksargent.

Notes:
1.) For convenience and the fact that most probable wouldn't search for your other posts, keeping a storage of good post links would be helpful for future people who may challenge you on this issue of climate change.
2.) Also, it wasn't so hard to win the argument was it when it became an intellectual one as opposed to a automatic dismissive one was it? I'm a reasonable person.
post #42 of 195
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

I have already, in several past threads, sorry Bucko.

Sorry, having read those threads, I do not accept those credentials.

Sorry bucko.

Perhaps we should discuss another form of leftist hate speech, the mocking ad-hom.

I would ask all of you to return to the thread topic and go back through and remove the multiple claims made about conservative posters. This thread is becoming one large ad-hom with many claiming they need not present evidence because the other party is ignorant/stupid. That in and of itself is a negative method of speech, substituting ridicule for reason.

I hope we can do better here than that.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #43 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Posting links from non-peer reviewed well respected climate science literature is the hallmark of the contrarians/denialist.

Aside from the issues of automatic profiling and canned response, I hope you see that your response was not very well done. See my above post, you could have silenced me and given me pause by posting counter point and links to your other posts in your first response. Productive and informative as opposed to dismissive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

In fact the poster doen not present any new evidence of butress their argument, just posts a couple of web backwater links, and says counter this. Well it's been countered, many times, by me, and by others in the past here in PO.

They were not backwater links - the fact that you do not know them does not make it backwater. The fact that you disagree with them probable automatically got the canned response of backwater because you seem into that type of response - canned. Heck, do you even know where Fresno is?
post #44 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

It's called a study of the history of human-kind, their organizational and power structures, and how they formed.

Control of the unknown used to be called God who you must appease. Now it is called Gaia who you must appease. A thorough study of philosophy would help understand this however it isn't just made up nonsense. Weather and the control of it is one of the most historical and fundamental means of the few attempting to control the many.

Channeling AJ here I see.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #45 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon8472 View Post

It needs to be countered for the very fact that it exists and could misinform people - that is reason enough alone to counter it. Otherwise, people will read my post, then your post, and conclude that I have a greater point to make than you who did not respond with level headed argument with links and counterpoints to even consider.

The fight against ignorance is continual and will be never ending for as long as humans exist. If you get tired of defending, step aside and let someone else take your place. Otherwise, defend it in an intellectual way, not sweeping stuff aside.



I did a search and read through some of your posts and links. Because it *does* seem to me from your links and posts in other topics that you have a higher level of understanding of this climate change topic than I do, I concede the point to you franksargent.

Notes:
1.) For convenience and the fact that most probable wouldn't search for your other posts, keeping a storage of good post links would be helpful for future people who may challenge you on this issue of climate change.
2.) Also, it wasn't so hard to win the argument was it when it became an intellectual one as opposed to a automatic dismissive one was it? I'm a reasonable person.

What EXACTLY needs to be countered? Be specific and explicit.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #46 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Sorry, having read those threads, I do not accept those credentials.

Sorry bucko.

Perhaps we should discuss another form of leftist hate speech, the mocking ad-hom.

I would ask all of you to return to the thread topic and go back through and remove the multiple claims made about conservative posters. This thread is becoming one large ad-hom with many claiming they need not present evidence because the other party is ignorant/stupid. That in and of itself is a negative method of speech, substituting ridicule for reason.

I hope we can do better here than that.

Sorry Bucko, your cherry picking is all too apparent in your opening post. Your mischaracterization of the NYT op-ed piece is also all too apparent.

You are dismissed Bucko.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #47 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

That really is the base of those with your views.

Maybe. Maybe not. But I try concern myself much less with the popularity of some particular position or belief than its truthfulness, correctness, factualness, etc.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

You certainly sound like someone who's had it with government.

You've got that right. But that's a whole other topic. And, frankly, that seems to be a fairly rational position. But, alas, we digress. We are talking about the inconsequential, extreme fringe minority, treasonous climate change denialist terrorists and, perhaps, what penalties and punishments should be visited upon them for having the temerity to disagree with the church.

Let's see if we can get back to the topic at hand. Thus far in the climate change (nee global warming) "debate" we have the "true believers" rationally and, well, let's just say it...scientifically...refering to the apostates and blasphemers as:

- treasonous
- terrorist
- inconsequential
- extremely fringe
- a minority (this one might actually be factually true even it's irrelevant)
- "denialists"
- pretty much the same as Jewish/Nazi holocaust deniers

I'm sure there are more, but it's a start. I doubt it would be hard to find references that add things like "moronic", "stupid" or "small minded".

At any rate, I'm trying to sort out how any or all of this furthers the scientific argumentation behind the climate change (nee global warming) "debate".
post #48 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon8472 View Post

Aside from the issues of automatic profiling and canned response, I hope you see that your response was not very well done. See my above post, you could have silenced me and given me pause by posting counter point and links to your other posts in your first response. Productive and informative as opposed to dismissive.



They were not backwater links - the fact that you do not know them does not make it backwater. The fact that you disagree with them probable automatically got the canned response of backwater because you seem into that type of response - canned. Heck, do you even know where Fresno is?

Provide links from the well respected peer reviewed climate science literature if you ever want to have a serious discussion. This thread is not a serious duiscussion of the well respected peer reviewed climate science literature.

In fact PO is a backwater inhabited by some on the right for the very explicit reason that their voices would otherwise be drowned out at more heavily trafficed websites.

That is the one fundimental salient fact that must be repeated, and often.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #49 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

It's called a study of the history of human-kind, their organizational and power structures, and how they formed.

Control of the unknown used to be called God who you must appease. Now it is called Gaia who you must appease. A thorough study of philosophy would help understand this however it isn't just made up nonsense. Weather and the control of it is one of the most historical and fundamental means of the few attempting to control the many.

Yeah the planets being effected but we shouldn't talk about it because that's imposing our weird Gaia beliefs onto people to trick them into ruling over them. Please...is that all you've got, because it's not all the scientists have got.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #50 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Maybe. Maybe not. But I try concern myself much less with the popularity of some particular position or belief than its truthfulness, correctness, factualness, etc.




You've got that right. But that's a whole other topic. And, frankly, that seems to be a fairly rational position. But, alas, we digress. We are talking about the inconsequential, extreme fringe minority, treasonous climate change denialist terrorists and, perhaps, what penalties and punishments should be visited upon them for having the temerity to disagree with the church.

Let's see if we can get back to the topic at hand. Thus far in the climate change (nee global warming) "debate" we have the "true believers" rationally and, well, let's just say it...scientifically...refering to the apostates and blasphemers as:

- treasonous
- terrorist
- inconsequential
- extremely fringe
- a minority (this one might actually be factually true even it's irrelevant)
- "denialists"
- pretty much the same as Jewish/Nazi holocaust deniers

I'm sure there are more, but it's a start. I doubt it would be hard to find references that add things like "moronic", "stupid" or "small minded".

At any rate, I'm trying to sort out how any or all of this furthers the scientific argumentation behind the climate change (nee global warming) "debate".

More cherry picking and taking words out of context I see.

Note, that none of the above underlined words appears in Krugman's op-ed piece.

Go figure.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #51 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

What EXACTLY needs to be countered? Be specific and explicit.

1.) Statement:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon8472

I myself fall on the side that there is not sufficient evidence that human activity has either significantly (I use this term in the statistical context for those in the know) or permanently altered the makeup of the atmosphere.

Effective counters:
- Show links that show that humans do effect the climate of the earth.
- Present a logical argument or use facts and knowledge you have to create a counter position that is defensible.

2.) Statement:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon8472

Also, time and technology is on our side.

Effective counters:
- Show links that show human generation of CO2 will have by a certain date (if unrestrained) effects on the planet (ecology, human survival, climate change in general).
- Present a logical argument or use facts and knowledge you have to create a counter position that is defensible.

2.) Statement:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon8472

Also, time and technology is on our side.

Effective counters:
- Show links that show human generation of CO2 will have by a certain date (if unrestrained) effects on the planet (ecology, human survival, climate change in general).
- Present a logical argument or use facts and knowledge you have to create a counter position that is defensible.

3.) Statement: (From Article Link)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Mossel

The significance of man's activity is a part of the ongoing debate.

4.) Statement: (From Article Link)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Mossel

The so called "greenhouse effect" is an unproven theory.

5.) Statement: (From Article Link)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Mossel

At worst, however, man's contribution looks to have only "sped up" the earth's natural cycles by a few decades. Obviously, a "few decades" are significant to the earth's current human population but not in terms of impacting the earth's climate history. If this speeding up process began with the first burning of petroleum 150 years ago, man's activities have affected 0.000003% of the earth's history; 0.0065% of man's history; and 1.5% of the time since the end of the last ice age.

5.) Statement: (From Article Link)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Mossel

If all of man's "contribution" were to cease immediately, the net effect, measured in geologic time, on the earth's natural warming and cooling cycles would not be measurable.

6.) Statement: (From Article Link)
Quote:
Originally Posted by UC San Diego

To what extent should the answers generated from such models be trusted? Consider this: if there are a dozen processes which we need to understand, and we only grasp each process within an error of 20 percent, the sum-total of the error adds to more than 200 percent! That is, if we now state that the content of carbon dioxide in the air so many million years ago had to be X, the true answer could be anywhere between 3 times X (200% more than stated) and X divided by 3 (200% less). Even if we make the reasonable assumption that half of the errors will cancel, we still get roughly a factor of two error on either side of the uncertainty statement. Thus, at the present state of knowledge, computing the answers will get us ballpark estimates and overall trends but not much more. Now you can appreciate why the range of errors plotted in the figure above are so large.
post #52 of 195
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Channeling AJ here I see.

Should I know who that is? Are you commenting on me?

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

What EXACTLY needs to be countered? Be specific and explicit.

Nothing need be countered. This is a thread about leftist hate speech. Try the topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Sorry Bucko, your cherry picking is all too apparent in your opening post. Your mischaracterization of the NYT op-ed piece is also all too apparent.

You are dismissed Bucko.

An awful lot of commenting on the poster again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Maybe. Maybe not. But I try concern myself much less with the popularity of some particular position or belief than its truthfulness, correctness, factualness, etc.

You've got that right. But that's a whole other topic. And, frankly, that seems to be a fairly rational position. But, alas, we digress. We are talking about the inconsequential, extreme fringe minority, treasonous climate change denialist terrorists and, perhaps, what penalties and punishments should be visited upon them for having the temerity to disagree with the church.

Let's see if we can get back to the topic at hand. Thus far in the climate change (nee global warming) "debate" we have the "true believers" rationally and, well, let's just say it...scientifically...refering to the apostates and blasphemers as:

- treasonous
- terrorist
- inconsequential
- extremely fringe
- a minority (this one might actually be factually true even it's irrelevant)
- "denialists"
- pretty much the same as Jewish/Nazi holocaust deniers

I'm sure there are more, but it's a start. I doubt it would be hard to find references that add things like "moronic", "stupid" or "small minded".

At any rate, I'm trying to sort out how any or all of this furthers the scientific argumentation behind the climate change (nee global warming) "debate".

Exactly.... scientific discussion doesn't need hateful labels to provide proof. Such things, ad-homs are resorted to when the argument is not convincing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Provide links from the well respected peer reviewed climate science literature if you ever want to have a serious discussion. This thread is not a serious duiscussion of the well respected peer reviewed climate science literature.

In fact PO is a backwater inhabited by some on the right for the very explicit reason that their voices would otherwise be drouned out at more heavily trafficed websites.

That is the one fundimental salient fact that must be repeated, and often.

This clearly is again, commenting on posters. Consider yourself reported.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Yeah the planets being effected but we shouldn't talk about it because that's imposing our weird Gaia beliefs onto people to trick them into ruling over them. Please...is that all you've got, because it's not all the scientists have got.

Actually it is all the scientists have got and more specifically all the politicians have got which is why the public has not been convinced.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #53 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Yeah the planets being effected but we shouldn't talk about it because that's imposing our weird Gaia beliefs onto people to trick them into ruling over them. Please...is that all you've got, because it's not all the scientists have got.

Ethos, pathos, logos.

Pathos is the operative word here, an emotional appeal, brought about by ... in the opening post.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #54 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon8472 View Post

1.) Statement:


Effective counters:
- Show links that show that humans do effect the climate of the earth.
- Present a logical argument or use facts and knowledge you have to create a counter position that is defensible.

2.) Statement:


Effective counters:
- Show links that show human generation of CO2 will have by a certain date (if unrestrained) effects on the planet (ecology, human survival, climate change in general).
- Present a logical argument or use facts and knowledge you have to create a counter position that is defensible.

2.) Statement:


Effective counters:
- Show links that show human generation of CO2 will have by a certain date (if unrestrained) effects on the planet (ecology, human survival, climate change in general).
- Present a logical argument or use facts and knowledge you have to create a counter position that is defensible.

3.) Statement: (From Article Link)


4.) Statement: (From Article Link)


5.) Statement: (From Article Link)


5.) Statement: (From Article Link)


6.) Statement: (From Article Link)

You are just parroting what others say, can't help you there.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #55 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Provide links from the well respected peer reviewed climate science literature if you ever want to have a serious discussion.

I suppose UC San Diego is not good enough for you. Oh well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

This thread is not a serious duiscussion of the well respected peer reviewed climate science literature.

UC San Diego is pretty respectable, no? Also for Lee Mossel, he had a well written article that shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. If anything, counter it with a superior source of information - actually provide a link. Thus far, I've done more than you in terms of stating a position, you have just said go search out other threads. Which isn't helpful if we are again discussing it in this thread - clearly the debate isn't over yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

In fact PO is a backwater inhabited by some on the right for the very explicit reason that their voices would otherwise be drowned out at more heavily trafficed websites.

And from the threads you started, you are clearly on the left. So clearly your biased left and I'm biased right. Your not asking for a serious discussion, your again using canned responses which bring in politics to the matter. Which solves nothing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

That is the one fundimental salient fact that must be repeated, and often.

What salient fact? I can repeat canned responses about the left all the time - it's simply not productive. You being left or me being right is independent of actually being knowledgeable or correct.
post #56 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

You are just parroting what others say, can't help you there.

Dude, your seriously undermining any trace of credibility you had with me on the actual issue. Have you not been tracking the thread of responses? I give you what you ask for, and again you dismiss it. This smells of a person who is extremely politically biased towards the left.
post #57 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Should I know who that is? Are you commenting on me?



Nothing need be countered. This is a thread about leftist hate speech. Try the topic.



An awful lot of commenting on the poster again.



Exactly.... scientific discussion doesn't need hateful labels to provide proof. Such things, ad-homs are resorted to when the argument is not convincing.



This clearly is again, commenting on posters. Consider yourself reported.



Actually it is all the scientists have got and more specifically all the politicians have got which is why the public has not been convinced.

Your chrerry picking ... your mischaracterization ... are not ad hominems, I'm not attacking you directly but your methods of argumentation, and in both regards the above statements are true.

I know the truth hurts, but it is the truth nonetheless.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #58 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon8472 View Post

Dude, your seriously undermining any trace of credibility you had with me on the actual issue. Have you not been tracking the thread of responses? I give you what you ask for, and again you dismiss it. This smells of a person who is extremely politically biased towards the left.

Stick to the hard science as displayed in the well respected peer reviewed climate science literature. You did not present an arguable position, just your own opinion, based on two websites with no formal rewiew process attached to them whatsoever.

Quote:
The so called "greenhouse effect" is an unproven theory.

That ALONE is a bold faced outright lie of the highest order. We have an atmosphere for heavens sake, atmosphere = greenhouse effect. That is an undeniable fact. Nuff said. Sad, really sad.

We have greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, are you trying to suggest that we do not?
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #59 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Your crerry picking ... your mischaracterization ... are not ad hominems, I'm not attacking you directly but your methods of argumentation, and in both regards the above statements are true.

Speak for yourself franksargent. Your methods of argumentation is simply to dismiss whole posts outright so far in this thread instead of contributing to it with your opinion and links - in a non-combative way.
post #60 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Stick to the hard science as displayed in the well respected peer reviewed climate science literature. You did not present an arguable position, just your own opinion, based on two websites with no formal rewiew process attached to them.

I did present an arguable position, one from UC San Diego with a graph of CO2 levels which illustrates no significant spike at the end point. The second being from a well written article that does not contradict the first article from UC San Diego about global warming. And you still have failed to post any links in this conversation - you just refer to them from other forum posts that you make people find.

Within this thread, you have not provided any arguable position whatsoever - except for your own opinion which is you "disagree." You just dismiss. Again, not a counterpoint for a forum discussion.

-----
Argh, your post editing messes with the flow of conversation. Wish you would simply make a new post. I can understand for simple things, but two additional sentences.
post #61 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Maybe. Maybe not. But I try concern myself much less with the popularity of some particular position or belief than its truthfulness, correctness, factualness, etc.




You've got that right. But that's a whole other topic. And, frankly, that seems to be a fairly rational position. But, alas, we digress. We are talking about the inconsequential, extreme fringe minority, treasonous climate change denialist terrorists and, perhaps, what penalties and punishments should be visited upon them for having the temerity to disagree with the church.

Let's see if we can get back to the topic at hand. Thus far in the climate change (nee global warming) "debate" we have the "true believers" rationally and, well, let's just say it...scientifically...refering to the apostates and blasphemers as:

- treasonous
- terrorist
- inconsequential
- extremely fringe
- a minority (this one might actually be factually true even it's irrelevant)
- "denialists"
- pretty much the same as Jewish/Nazi holocaust deniers

I'm sure there are more, but it's a start. I doubt it would be hard to find references that add things like "moronic", "stupid" or "small minded".

At any rate, I'm trying to sort out how any or all of this furthers the scientific argumentation behind the climate change (nee global warming) "debate".

The way things are shaping up is that the only ones that deny CC fit into some of the categories you mentioned. The fight has moved on significantly. There are those like trumptman, who, so to speak, titillate, with notions of gods and virgins but their only audience is anchored firmly in anti-government conspiracy types who are deranged beyond comprehension and are prone to venting their frustrations through excessive force.

So fortunately things are moving on and the lame arguments against CC are becoming just that thereby soon they'll be no more. More people are acting on the science not the vested interests spin and as conditions around us worsen yet more action will be necessary. Of course that's not all going to be to everyone liking, including myself sometimes no doubt, however as things stand I'm firmly on the side of far more needs to be done sooner rather than later, as I expect you've already gathered.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #62 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

That ALONE is a bold faced outright lie of the highest order. We have an atmosphere for heavens sake, atmosphere = greenhouse effect. That is an undeniable fact. Nuff said. Sad, really sad.

We have greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, are you trying to suggest that we do not?

I don't think of you as slow franksargent, perhaps you are just reading it to fast - and it sounds like your actually even attempting to read the links for the first time now. I think you know what he means by the "greenhouse effect" in context to what he's talking about. He's obviously not saying there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect - he's speaking towards human contribution resulting in an artificial change in Earth's climate.
post #63 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon8472 View Post

Speak for yourself franksargent. Your methods of argumentation is simply to dismiss whole posts outright so far in this thread instead of contributing to it with your opinion and links - in a non-combative way.

You presented no NEW information to be discussed, that is why. What in either of those two links is NEW information?

This is not a debating club, you can continue to waste your time, I have much better things to do with mine, that to rehash old, no very old, no ancient arguments. \
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #64 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon8472 View Post

I don't think of you as slow franksargent, perhaps you are just reading it to fast - and it sounds like your actually even attempting to read the links for the first time now. I think you know what he means by the "greenhouse effect" in context to what he's talking about. He's obviously not saying there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect - he's speaking towards human contribution resulting in an artificial change in Earth's climate.

I don't think of ... as slow ...
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #65 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon8472 View Post

I don't think of you as slow franksargent, perhaps you are just reading it to fast - and it sounds like your actually even attempting to read the links for the first time now. I think you know what he means by the "greenhouse effect" in context to what he's talking about. He's obviously not saying there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect - he's speaking towards human contribution resulting in an artificial change in Earth's climate.

So this is the foundation of your understanding of the climate science, two websites with a total of less than one thousand words.

Hey look here, my previous post, refute everything in those three links and you just might convince someone.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #66 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

The way things are shaping up is that the only ones that deny CC fit into some of the categories you mentioned.

Uh huh. Whatever.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

...anchored firmly in anti-government conspiracy types who are deranged beyond comprehension and are prone to venting their frustrations through excessive force.

First you seem to be rambling. Second, the irony meter just went off the charts with you railing against "anti-government conspiracy types who are deranged beyond comprehension and are prone to venting their frustrations through excessive force" while the cheering the climate change folks who are calling for the use of government force to compel everyone to submit to their beliefs and opinions.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

So fortunately things are moving on and the lame arguments against CC are becoming just that thereby soon they'll be no more.

Yes indeed. (evil laughter) (rubs hands together) Soon the dissenters will be dealt with. Muuaaahhhh! (more evil laughter)



Whatever. I understand that the goal and desired outcome to silence and eliminate counter opinions and discussion. That's what science is all about after all.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

More people are acting on the science not the vested interests spin...

Uh huh.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Of course that's not all going to be to everyone liking, including myself sometimes no doubt, however as things stand I'm firmly on the side of far more needs to be done sooner rather than later, as I expect you've already gathered.

Indeed.
post #67 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon8472 View Post

... one from UC San Diego with a graph of CO2 levels which illustrates no significant spike at the end point.

This is false, CO2 has risen over 100 ppmv, from 280 to 380 ppmv, you need to look at a more detailed linear plot that shows up as a vertical line, which has not ever been seen in the past 800,000 years.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #68 of 195
Trumptman quote- "Actually it is all the scientists have got and more specifically all the politicians have got which is why the public has not been convinced."

I tempted to say you don't actually believe what you said here but won't because in some strange way I think you believe some of the stuff you tell yourself for comfort and bursting that bubble seems a little cruel. No offense Trumptman, but really....
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #69 of 195
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon8472 View Post

I don't think of you as slow franksargent, perhaps you are just reading it to fast - and it sounds like your actually even attempting to read the links for the first time now. I think you know what he means by the "greenhouse effect" in context to what he's talking about. He's obviously not saying there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect - he's speaking towards human contribution resulting in an artificial change in Earth's climate.

Talon, it really doesn't matter what you post. It will not be engaged because that is what is being demonstrated is a fallacy called a circumstantial ad-hom. Your evidence will be dismissed because of the source, because of the poster, because even if it would be relevant then you clearly are too stupid to understand why it is or is not so.

The game is to get you frustrated enough to comment on him since that is what he is doing to you.

My suggest would be to refocus on the topic and not play that game.

The focus shift by certain parties is intentional. There is no reasonable means of defending calling someone a treasonous or a terrorist for political disagreement.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #70 of 195
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Trumptman quote- "Actually it is all the scientists have got and more specifically all the politicians have got which is why the public has not been convinced."

I tempted to say you don't actually believe what you said here but won't because in some strange way I think you believe some of the stuff you tell yourself for comfort and bursting that bubble seems a little cruel. No offense Trumptman, but really....

Yes, I can't actually believe what I say because then you would have to address it instead of why I am deluded.

Care to address why Krugman needs to resort to calling people traitors?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #71 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon8472 View Post

For this thread, I provided supportive post against those in this forum topic who think humans are having an effect on Earth's climate. The fact that the issue was brought up again (not even by me) in this forum is of no consequence. Again, if you can't find the time to actually intellectually counter an argument, then don't waste your time posting at all - let someone else take up the torch. You find the energy to dismiss it, but not qualify your own posts. This is unhelpful, and not a contribution to the discussion. Either step up with a post full of links and counter arguments to stop all other arguments or don't - because half assing it isn't the solution.



Apparently, I have gotten you to respond several times because you clearly look bad in the way you respond. Either that, or you like wasting your own time.



Then why half ass it anymore and post replies? All you've done is made several bad posts and look unreasonable. I suspect you'll post again because you are probable self conscious of your replies trying to find a decent way out of this - if not cut your losses and stop replying.

-------------------

Now, if anyone else would like to get back on topic of CC, please lets do so. And again - remember to create thoughtful replies - they'll be more effective and look reasonable.

You appear to have some issues that I'm not willing to discuss in an open forum.

One of them though is a very repetitive writing style.

You're not even arguing the subject matter now, you're just assigning blame, several times now.

Oh shit, I look so bad now, I've lost the argument, because you said so, oh, I'm so flustered now, I'm just so upset now, I don't know what to do, oh no, I'm going to cry, oh no, I've got a gun to my head now, stop, stop, stop, or I'll blow my effin' brains out.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #72 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

This is false, CO2 has risen over 100 ppmv, from 280 to 380 ppmv, you need to look at a more detailed linear plot that shows up as a vertical line, which has not ever been seen in the past 800,000 years.

Ah, I'm glad you finally found time to continue replying. But back on topic, I think you may have something there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

So this is the foundation of your understanding of the climate science, two websites with a total of less than one thousand words.

Impressive, so you attack the word count of two websites designed to be understandable and used for public consumption. Hardly a counter point. If I posted a 200 + page pdf, no one would read it - that's just as useless. And then everyone would have to take your word for it that you may be reading it in context as opposing to cherry picking the sweet spots.


Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Hey look here, my previous post, refute everything in those three links and you just might convince someone.

First off, I'll dismiss NYTimes as thats a liberally biased news source, and Paul Krugman is also partisan in his ideas. For this reason, I never post FOX links because the left/liberals would be up-in-arms.

I won't dismiss the MIT report. And since I don't have enough knowledge in the field to fully dissect it, I therefore won't dispute its findings.
post #73 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Talon, it really doesn't matter what you post. It will not be engaged because that is what is being demonstrated is a fallacy called a circumstantial ad-hom. Your evidence will be dismissed because of the source, because of the poster, because even if it would be relevant then you clearly are too stupid to understand why it is or is not so.

The game is to get you frustrated enough to comment on him since that is what he is doing to you.

My suggest would be to refocus on the topic and not play that game.

The focus shift by certain parties is intentional. There is no reasonable means of defending calling someone a treasonous or a terrorist for political disagreement.

A game is being played? By whom?
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #74 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

A game is being played? By whom?

Looks like the same game in this thread as well as the last one where I replied to him.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #75 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Talon, it really doesn't matter what you post. It will not be engaged because that is what is being demonstrated is a fallacy called a circumstantial ad-hom. Your evidence will be dismissed because of the source, because of the poster, because even if it would be relevant then you clearly are too stupid to understand why it is or is not so.

The game is to get you frustrated enough to comment on him since that is what he is doing to you.

My suggest would be to refocus on the topic and not play that game.

The focus shift by certain parties is intentional. There is no reasonable means of defending calling someone a treasonous or a terrorist for political disagreement.

Argh, you are completely right trumptman. It probable would have taken me at best two to three more posts to figure this out - at worst five. Thanks for saving me the trouble - I should have spotted this sooner.
post #76 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon8472 View Post

Ah, I'm glad you finally found time to continue replying. But back on topic, I think you may have something there.



Impressive, so you attack the word count of two websites designed to be understandable and used for public consumption. Hardly a counter point. If I posted a 200 + page pdf, no one would read it - that's just as useless. And then everyone would have to take your word for it that you may be reading it in context as opposing to cherry picking the sweet spots.




First off, I'll dismiss NYTimes as thats a liberally biased news source, and Paul Krugman is also partisan in his ideas. For this reason, I never post FOX links because the left/liberals would be up-in-arms.

I won't dismiss the MIT report. And since I don't have enough knowledge in the field to fully dissect it, I therefore won't dispute its findings.

There are three links there, but I'll throw in a forth, the 2007 IPCC, and severel thousand very well respected peer reviewed climate science literature articles.

That should make you happy, I'm sure.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #77 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon8472 View Post

Argh, you are completely right trumptman. It probable would have taken me at best two to three more posts to figure this out - at worst five. Thanks for saving me the trouble - I should have spotted this sooner.

Yes people who won't just cave in and agree black is white! Imagine that!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #78 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Looks like the same game in this thread as well as the last one where I replied to him.

It does get rather old, the same old tired complaints, always casting dispersions upon others, there are no mirrors in some people's glass houses. We need to make a list, Letterman style
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #79 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Uh huh. Whatever.




First you seem to be rambling. Second, the irony meter just went off the charts with you railing against "anti-government conspiracy types who are deranged beyond comprehension and are prone to venting their frustrations through excessive force" while the cheering the climate change folks who are calling for the use of government force to compel everyone to submit to their beliefs and opinions.




Yes indeed. (evil laughter) (rubs hands together) Soon the dissenters will be dealt with. Muuaaahhhh! (more evil laughter)



Whatever. I understand that the goal and desired outcome to silence and eliminate counter opinions and discussion. That's what science is all about after all.




Uh huh.




Indeed.

I'm just saying it like it is. I agree that's it's pretty freaky how extreme some are becoming. If they really believe CC is a hoax to control and even exterminate them it's not surprising their becoming so extreme, that's just the sad reality of where things are at. The denialists are left with extreme views because all the more rational ground has fallen from under them as the reality of science casts light on their positions. I certainly don't criticize a healthy debate and there's nothing wrong with being skeptical but informed scienctific study is undoubtedly preferable to desperate conspiracy theories lodged in ignorance that take advantage of any mistrust of government.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #80 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Yes, I can't actually believe what I say because then you would have to address it instead of why I am deluded.

Care to address why Krugman needs to resort to calling people traitors?

I already have in depth, you just didn't notice it would seem.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Leftist Hate Speech