"Climate Change - Doubts, Denials, Scepticism, and Politics"

[JimC]

Mysturji wrote:

...The level of arrogance, mendacity and cowardice I have encountered in this thread is staggering. Especially considering the motivation supposedly behind it.
Lying for Jesus I can understand (sort of), but lying for science?
Shame.
Because who cares when a fundy gets caught and discredited for lying for Jesus? It's not as if he was arguing for anything important.
People who behave like that in the name of science are (IMHO) a bigger threat to the world than China India and McDonalds combined.
Because the arrogance alienates people just when you really need them on your side, the lies discredit the science (if they lied about that, what else are they lying about?), and the cowardice means that it is unlikely to change....

Mysturji, this part of your post (and also where you made it clear that it was Piscator you were referring to) steps over the line towards a personal attack. Please refrain from this in future; it is fine to complain that your arguments have been misrepresented, and give evidence for this (and I think you are probably right to an extent, but it was not an ad hom). This is an official warning.

[charlou]

I don't think it does, Jim.

[ginckgo]

The level of arrogance, mendacity and cowardice I have encountered in this thread is staggering. Especially considering the motivation supposedly behind it.
Lying for Jesus I can understand (sort of), but lying for science?
Shame.
Because who cares when a fundy gets caught and discredited for lying for Jesus? It's not as if he was arguing for anything important.
People who behave like that in the name of science are (IMHO) a bigger threat to the world than China India and McDonalds combined.
Because the arrogance alienates people just when you really need them on your side, the lies discredit the science (if they lied about that, what else are they lying about?), and the cowardice means that it is unlikely to change.

i agree that 'lying for science' is destructive.

Which is why people like Ian Plimer, Bob Carter, Monckton, Watts and all the other shameless FUD demagogues should be publicly discredited.

[Reverend Blair]

Do you really think so

nah, I post by using automatic typing so as to avoid thinking. Also. the pyramids were built by time-travelers.

Then you're more easily fooled than I thought.

Yup, I'm just a poor country rube from Saskatchewan. Never seen the big city before. Never went to skool. I put the simp in simple right after I was done putting the cunt back in country.

Did you you stick to science & politics back at RDF, or did you ever cross virtual swords with any fundies?

i never bothered with fundies much at RDF. I get enough of that in real life, and there were many there to deal with the trolls and geeks.

I did, and I've seen these tactics before, many times.

I saw a man pee on a tree today. I was a bit taken aback until I realized that man was me.

I also saw an incredibly irresponsible man letting a dog drive his truck. The dog drove into a post though, and broke a headlight, the left light valance, and put a dent in the hood. Serves the bastard right. Also, I need to find some parts before Mrs. Rev notices she's still married to a fucking goober who lets the dog drive his truck.

I wrote a fairly long and carefully constructed post

I've pounded some pickets in my time.

I felt it necessary to state the bleeding obvious in an effort to correct previous misrepresentations of my position, and to prevent future ones, and he replies with a quote-mine of one of those statements of the obvious, tagging a "Thank you" and nothing else on the end.

I dunno. I'm a pretty careful reader. I'm also a believer in nuance and giving the benefit of the doubt. I've never quite figured your position out,but I can certainly understand why others have designated a certain place for you in the pantheon of possible positions. As my Grandma told me a time or two, "You have to be careful what you say, because somebody might listen."

That "reply" looks specifically designed to appear to the casual observer as though I have just conceeded defeat on that particular point, and that he is being magnanimous in victory, when in fact you and I (and pistacor) all know that that has been my position all along.

Ah, yes, the "You and I and Cisco," or in this case Piscator, argument. I doubt that you and I and Cisco, or in this case Piscator, know a damned thing though. I know that the scientists know a fair bit, and I know I try pretty hard to stay informed, but I also let my dog drive my truck. On a scale of one to 643 of Who Ya Gonna Trust?, I tend to pick the experts overt anonymous internet denizens like you and I.

That's the kind of behaviour I'd expect from a fundy.

Odd, because he's neither threatened me with hell nor tried to rob me. I think perhaps you need more experience of fundies.

Then, when asked to elaborate, instead of answering the question, he continues the pretense with a flippant "Have a nice day."
That's just twattish.

See, when people tell me to have a nice day, I tend to do so. It's never a bad idea. If they didn't mean it, following their advice will just piss them off.

Anyway, a friend just walked in with a couple quarts of custom made Rheumatiz medicine. In the morning I have a hangover and a trip to see some ponies to tend to. How 'bout we try again after that? In the meantime, here's a song:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBbuPnfG ... feature=iv[/youtube]

[FBM]

This is my first post in this thread. I just wanted to say that there's hardly any skepticism here in Korea. Korea is increasing its investment in green energy much, much faster than any other country. I read that in the news a couple of days ago, but I can't find the story now.

[Mysturji]

Mysturji wrote:

...The level of arrogance, mendacity and cowardice I have encountered in this thread is staggering. Especially considering the motivation supposedly behind it.
Lying for Jesus I can understand (sort of), but lying for science?
Shame.
Because who cares when a fundy gets caught and discredited for lying for Jesus? It's not as if he was arguing for anything important.
People who behave like that in the name of science are (IMHO) a bigger threat to the world than China India and McDonalds combined.
Because the arrogance alienates people just when you really need them on your side, the lies discredit the science (if they lied about that, what else are they lying about?), and the cowardice means that it is unlikely to change....

Mysturji, this part of your post (and also where you made it clear that it was Piscator you were referring to) steps over the line towards a personal attack. Please refrain from this in future; it is fine to complain that your arguments have been misrepresented, and give evidence for this (and I think you are probably right to an extent, but it was not an ad hom). This is an official warning.

I was not attacking the person. I was attacking the behaviour. This is a fine but important distinction.

[JimC]

Mysturji wrote:

...The level of arrogance, mendacity and cowardice I have encountered in this thread is staggering. Especially considering the motivation supposedly behind it.
Lying for Jesus I can understand (sort of), but lying for science?
Shame.
Because who cares when a fundy gets caught and discredited for lying for Jesus? It's not as if he was arguing for anything important.
People who behave like that in the name of science are (IMHO) a bigger threat to the world than China India and McDonalds combined.
Because the arrogance alienates people just when you really need them on your side, the lies discredit the science (if they lied about that, what else are they lying about?), and the cowardice means that it is unlikely to change....

Mysturji, this part of your post (and also where you made it clear that it was Piscator you were referring to) steps over the line towards a personal attack. Please refrain from this in future; it is fine to complain that your arguments have been misrepresented, and give evidence for this (and I think you are probably right to an extent, but it was not an ad hom). This is an official warning.

I was not attacking the person. I was attacking the behaviour. This is a fine but important distinction.

OK, saying that is a good step foraward in this thread which I appreciate, although using the words "arrogance, mendacity and cowardice" is perhaps a little risky, since it can be read as implying something quite unpleasant and personal about other posters in the thread. Hopefully, from now on, everybody can stick to attacking arguments in ways that don't have the appearance of personal attacks...

[ginckgo]

Because the arrogance alienates people just when you really need them on your side, the lies discredit the science (if they lied about that, what else are they lying about?), and the cowardice means that it is unlikely to change.

That seems to imply that the problem isn't the amateur 'skeptics' with no scientific training, attacking the scientific community with assertions of icompetence and fraud (which to me is arrogant beyond measure). No, the problem is the scientists who don't waste more of their time and resources dealing with every notjob accusation and wooly alternative 'theory' that get's trown their way, as well as those of the public who defend the scientists with the a similar energy as that with which they get attacked in the first place.

I haven't seen any substantiated evidence of 'lying' being exposed in the scientific literature. Media and politicians, yes, but they (on purpose or not) do this about every subject.

Cowardice? Please explain.

[Mysturji]

Cowardice? Please explain.

Hit and run tactics: Making accusations/misrepresentations, then ignoring/evading direct questions and requests for evidence, then doing it again.

[Woodbutcher]

Maybe we can't predict the future , but each one of us can influence it a little bit, and maybe those small contributions will help those that come after us. The problem as I see it, is the time frame, When change happens gradually it's hard to see. Old people have always been guilty of saying:" You think this is bad, when I was young....", and we treat that as a joke. Same with climate change. It will be a gradual process, and people will just accept it, especially those of us in the affluent nations. We'll feel very little pain. Those who have the least will lose the most. The States and Canada might lose some grain producing areas, but we'll still have plenty, we produce an excess as it is. There just wont be any left over for those who'll need food the most. The large corporations will still control the produce and resources, and we'll pay whatever they decide. It's always been so, and always will be so.
I sold my 4X4 truck and bought a Subaru Forester. I can fit my tools in it, and now I use half the gas. If I need to haul lumber or building products, I use a trailer or have it delivered. I heat my house with wood I cut on my property, and keep the heat down in the winter, if it's chilly I just add a couple more cats on the bed. I have no air conditioning, just ceiling fans, they run winter and summer. I turn lights off when not required, I have all electronics off when not in use. I don't buy stuff just because it's new, I'm satisfied with a lower grade computers. I have fluorescent light bulbs everywhere I have lights. I try to create as little waste as possible, and I compost. I have a garden and I pick berries in the bush. I don't throw clothing away just because new styles came in. I even darn my work socks. I don't travel to town unless I have to.
There are many things we can do to make our carbon foot print smaller. But you have to start somewhere.

[JimC]

I sold my 4X4 truck and bought a Subaru Forester. I can fit my tools in it, and now I use half the gas. If I need to haul lumber or building products, I use a trailer or have it delivered. I heat my house with wood I cut on my property, and keep the heat down in the winter, if it's chilly I just add a couple more cats on the bed. I have no air conditioning, just ceiling fans, they run winter and summer. I turn lights off when not required, I have all electronics off when not in use. I don't buy stuff just because it's new, I'm satisfied with a lower grade computers. I have fluorescent light bulbs everywhere I have lights. I try to create as little waste as possible, and I compost. I have a garden and I pick berries in the bush. I don't throw clothing away just because new styles came in. I even darn my work socks. I don't travel to town unless I have to.
There are many things we can do to make our carbon foot print smaller. But you have to start somewhere.

Snap, at least in part...

I've ordered a new Subaru Forester Diesel, that will get us to the bits of Oz I want to see, while using nearly half the fuel that my current LandRover diesel does. We try to minimise our household use of energy as much as we can, lots of composting and growing our own vegies, harvesting rainwater etc. Solar panels are on the to-do list as well...

[Reverend Blair]

Good post, Woodbutcher. I'm not sure what this "style" thing you refer to in clothing is, but it sounds like a bad idea.

I'm not sure what part of the Northern Muskeg you live in, but if you're ever in Winnipeg let me know and we'll have a beer.

Something about the vehicle downsizing. I'm finding it difficult in a lot of ways. I went from an 3/4 ton (1980) to a newer (2004) 1/2 ton (started out looking for a 3/4 ton, but those have actually gotten even less efficient ) I need a truck for hauling materials and so on on a regular basis. The 1/2 ton is a lot less capable than it could/should be though. I'm not talking about the power from the smaller engine...there's lots there, more than the old 3/4 ton had...but the suspension etc. sucks.

The result is that I'm looking for a trailer, or possibly somebody who build me a trailer. I'll still need the truck to tow it with, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

I don't drive the truck unless I need it, of course. Most of our small trips happen in Mrs. Rev's Hyundai. The thing is that it looks a lot to me like the manufacturers have lightened up utility vehicles, forcing people to buy heavier ones. At the same time, insurance rates and safety regulations have put a lot of people into a position where they can only afford one vehicle, and they need a utility vehicle at least part of the time, so they are left with no choice but to buy a 3/4 ton and use it for shopping trips and driving the kids to school too.

[Woodbutcher]

Good post, Woodbutcher. I'm not sure what this "style" thing you refer to in clothing is, but it sounds like a bad idea.

I'm not sure what part of the Northern Muskeg you live in, but if you're ever in Winnipeg let me know and we'll have a beer.

Something about the vehicle downsizing. I'm finding it difficult in a lot of ways. I went from an 3/4 ton (1980) to a newer (2004) 1/2 ton (started out looking for a 3/4 ton, but those have actually gotten even less efficient ) I need a truck for hauling materials and so on on a regular basis. The 1/2 ton is a lot less capable than it could/should be though. I'm not talking about the power from the smaller engine...there's lots there, more than the old 3/4 ton had...but the suspension etc. sucks.

The result is that I'm looking for a trailer, or possibly somebody who build me a trailer. I'll still need the truck to tow it with, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

I don't drive the truck unless I need it, of course. Most of our small trips happen in Mrs. Rev's Hyundai. The thing is that it looks a lot to me like the manufacturers have lightened up utility vehicles, forcing people to buy heavier ones. At the same time, insurance rates and safety regulations have put a lot of people into a position where they can only afford one vehicle, and they need a utility vehicle at least part of the time, so they are left with no choice but to buy a 3/4 ton and use it for shopping trips and driving the kids to school too.

I'm from Thunder Bay area, a mere 600 km away by crow. I'll come to Winnipeg eventually, you have a good stamp show there.

[ginckgo]

Cowardice? Please explain.

Hit and run tactics: Making accusations/misrepresentations, then ignoring/evading direct questions and requests for evidence, then doing it again.

I'd like you to provide some evidence for that statement.

[JimC]

Cowardice? Please explain.

Hit and run tactics: Making accusations/misrepresentations, then ignoring/evading direct questions and requests for evidence, then doing it again.

I'd like you to provide some evidence for that statement.

I'm not sure whether Myst meant posts in this thread, or people taking a certain view of climate change in general...