97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 12940
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby snoqueen » Mon Feb 17, 2014 9:24 pm

Yes. And we have to stay here until Sandi and Bludg both agree they have been snookered by industry-generated climate propaganda, or hell freezes over. Whichever comes first.

Nothing less than the rationality of internet discourse is at stake.

Bland
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1375
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:46 am

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Bland » Mon Feb 17, 2014 9:55 pm

Bludgeon wrote:If people with cholesterol issues shouldn't eat them, that pretty much means they're bad for you.
That's some mighty fine nonsensical reasoning you done did dood right there Bludge ol' boy.
Lessee how this plays out shall we?
People with thyroid issues shouldn't eat spinach. So, according to Bludgeony Logic,that means spinach is bad for everyone.
I predict if we continue to apply this Bludgeoning Tool to all foods, we'll all starve and die in a matter of weeks.

DCB
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3252
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby DCB » Mon Feb 17, 2014 11:02 pm

Bludgeon wrote:We have no idea what the daily/yearly ice levels, sea levels, temperature levels, rainbow levels, care bear levels, or any other anthropormorphized tell-tale sign that the gods are angry with us, for century upon century upon millennium.

I get it - you refuse to believe that science can make accurate claims about that past, because you assume everyone is just as ignorant as you are.

That's pretty much what Ken Ham said when he was defending young Earth creationism.

Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Bludgeon » Mon Feb 17, 2014 11:51 pm

Prof. Wagstaff wrote:Oh PLEASE hijack this inanity. I would so much rather talk about eggs with you than climate science with Sandi and Bludgeon.

Hey, you responded to me not the other way around, don't embarrass yourself putting on a facade about how it's all too much for you. If you can't answer... don't answer.

I'm so weary of this rhetorical 'tactic' on the left, essentially you all hang out on this page looking for someone to play talking points with you, basically sublimating yourselves to the masturbatory, doctrinal 'victory' scenario, it's like a predetermined script that always ends the same for ideologists who want to emulsify themselves in progressive holy water. Anytime a point of view comes up that isn't accounted for on your script of talking points, you pull a Wagstaff and bluster that the very concept of disagreement is so very ridiculous, the question is ineligible for a response.

...Which is kind of a cop out way of saying, "I don't want to have to defend my view point." I suppose, those who can't, don't.

There's significant reason for doubt about the concept of AGW. Deal with it. If you want to claim kinship with the side that's "on the side of science", don't be so antagonistic to science's true friend through the ages: SKEPTICISM.

Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Bludgeon » Tue Feb 18, 2014 12:26 am

Time and time again progressives are claiming "science" but playing politics. Ideological arguments are not the same as the scientific arguments you're purporting to be speaking on behalf of. Science considers all possibilities. Ideology, on the other hand, has really grown to fill the place that was occupied by religion for centuries. I think what's on display is an era where the fabric of irrational human faith and the institutions of religion and politics are actively in hybrid. The concept of organized religion is rapidly losing relevance, but the perceived need for a guiding moral doctrine is promoting ideology to a place one can only describe as "ideological faith".

Faith is about easy answers: fast easy answers - fast ,comfortable easy answers. The dual nature of mankind leaves in it's wake an epidemic, chronic obsession with guilt; this preoccupation with guilt and blame and right and wrong drives men and women to externalize their anxieties and project their fears by anthromorphizing the phenomena they see in the natural universe by attributing human qualities by the things they don't understand. Now, like always, humans tend to identify these phenomena with their own psychological fear - a dread that is ever growing; and they allow themselves to believe and promote the irrational. After all, guilt and blame and right and wrong are difficult, complicated things to deal with and blaming the "sky monsters" is easy. It's been a human institution for the entire span of civilization and probably going all the way back to the rise of modern humans.

The ideological faith of climate science is all about the belief in a variation of the concept of 'original sin', in the extent that warmists believe AGW is an intrinsic byproduct of modern human living. Warmists are preoccupied with their guilt about a 'carbon footprint', and they are amusingly constantly at odds with each other about the best ways to reduce it. Aside from the sheer futility of this pursuit, it is secondarily amusing to observe the many ways their attempts to try to reduce their carbon footprint only results in ballooning it some other way --- which also makes no difference, whatsoever. Obsession with carbon footprint is akin to Christianity's obsession with original sin and the fundamental belief that no matter what they do, virtue is beyond them without salvation. Similarly for warmists, human activity by itself is irredeemable: the proliferation of human civilization can only damn our species by the sin of advancing AGW.

Ad-lib elaboration is encouraged. Superstition is widely cultivated by warmists, who are always looking for hybrid ways to pair warmism with any other pagan concept, from new age mysticism, to extreme naturalism. It's an ideological faith in which the prosperity of a thriving human civilization is the worst of all possible outcomes, and the primitive idolization of a depopulated world is propped up as the most ideal of outcomes.

Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Bludgeon » Tue Feb 18, 2014 12:40 am

Bland wrote:
Bludgeon wrote:If people with cholesterol issues shouldn't eat them, that pretty much means they're bad for you.
That's some mighty fine nonsensical reasoning you done did dood right there Bludge ol' boy.
Lessee how this plays out shall we?
People with thyroid issues shouldn't eat spinach. So, according to Bludgeony Logic,that means spinach is bad for everyone.
I predict if we continue to apply this Bludgeoning Tool to all foods, we'll all starve and die in a matter of weeks.


Clarify, people with any cardiovascular condition should avoid them, which is essentially every human being on the planet eventually, if we're lucky enough to live that long. Eggs are fine when you're young and healthy, there are things in eggs that are good for you, but as a human being who wants to live as long as possible, they are always eventually bad for you; and probably the less you eat them at all times, the better off you'll be. Ask Snow or whatever.

Stella_Guru
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1216
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 7:08 pm

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Stella_Guru » Tue Feb 18, 2014 9:26 am

The human practice of eating the reproductive media of birds, the coagulation of the curd from the secretion of the mammary glands of cows, and the dead bodies of fellow creatures has gone on for so long a time that it is generally regarded as normal. But, food intended by nature for one is not necessarily a desirable food for the other. Adults of any breed should have been weened and past the egg/milk stage of feeding. Scientific logic and reason shows that this "blood culture" corresponds with unnecessary industrial development and global warming. We should have remained a tree culture based on a diet of fruits, nuts, seeds, shoots and roots. Afterall, shouldn't compassionate living be about making the connections between the way we live and the way others suffer?
Last edited by Stella_Guru on Tue Feb 18, 2014 9:41 am, edited 2 times in total.

rabble
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7845
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby rabble » Tue Feb 18, 2014 9:28 am

From LiveStrong:
Nutrition Debate: Are Eggs Good For You?
Myth: Eggs make you fat Truth: Eggs are a great food for weight loss

Myth: Eggs raise your cholesterol Truth: Eggs don’t affect cholesterol levels

Myth: You should only eat egg whites Truth: Enjoy the entire egg -- yolk included)

Myth: Eating raw eggs allows you access to more nutrients Truth: Cook your eggs to ensure you access all the nutrients

wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3222
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm
Contact:

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby wack wack » Tue Feb 18, 2014 9:42 am

Any psychology teachers here? I'd suggest capturing all of Bludgeon's last few posts; hard to imagine that finer examples of projection exist elsewhere in print.

jman111
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3612
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County
Contact:

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby jman111 » Tue Feb 18, 2014 10:11 am

Bludgeon wrote:And your futile point is to champion the ideological notion that the theory of AGW is without any serious doubt when in fact there are billions of years of valuable data that we've got no credible account for; not credible to the extent of establishing wild, reactionary claims about the end of the world. Not only is there serious doubt, there's almost no serious proof. We have no idea what the daily/yearly ice levels, sea levels, temperature levels, rainbow levels, care bear levels, or any other anthropormorphized tell-tale sign that the gods are angry with us, for century upon century upon millennium.

OK, I get it. You don't trust modern science because there is this vast expanse of historical events of which we have no (or limited) knowledge.

Bludgeon wrote:1 egg containts 62% of all the cholesterol you should have for the whole day. Two eggs are too much, it's ridiculous.

Mammals have consumed eggs for, well, probably as long as they've resembled modern-day mammals. But you rely on modern science to dictate what's bad for you?

DCB
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3252
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby DCB » Tue Feb 18, 2014 11:13 am

Bludgeon wrote:Faith is about easy answers: fast easy answers - fast ,comfortable easy answers.

easy answers? You're the one who just rejects the entire scientific enterprise out of hand, because Skepticism.

You've got nothing to back up your opinions - neither your doubts about global warming nor your psycho-babble "analysis" of everyone else's ideology. Just a lot of rant. I'm sure it all makes perfect sense inside your head. But your near-fanatical Denialism is entirely faith-based.

In the Creationism debate, they were asked, "what would change your mind?" Ham stated clearly that because of his Christian faith, nothing would change his mind. Similarly, you've made it clear that no amount of scientific evidence could ever convince you that increasing CO2 is changing the climate of the planet.

Nye answered that any evidence would change his mind. I'm on his side. If you can produce any valid research that invalidates the premise, I'm all ears. But you got nothin'.

If the argument is as specious as you think, it shouldn't be that hard. As I've mentioned before, the fossil fuel industry is more than willing to throw money into their Denialism campaign. Why can't they run their own models? analyze their own ice cores? show us where the errors are. Instead all we get is a lot of bullshit propaganda.

Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 9647
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm
Contact:

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Tue Feb 18, 2014 11:18 am

Bludgeon wrote:Hey, you responded to me not the other way around, don't embarrass yourself putting on a facade about how it's all too much for you. If you can't answer... don't answer.
I neither put on a facade nor can I not answer. I did answer -- about 50 pages back. We had our little back and forth. Rehashing it again would be completely futile, don't you agree?

Bludgeon wrote:... people with any cardiovascular condition should avoid [eggs], which is essentially every human being on the planet eventually, if we're lucky enough to live that long... as a human being who wants to live as long as possible, they are always eventually bad for you...
If you live long enough, you'll eventually die. I agree, of course, but I have no idea what that has to do with eggs.

Stella_Guru wrote:Adults of any breed should have been weened and past the egg/milk stage of feeding.
Tell it to the gazillion species of animals that feast on the eggs of other species. What a monumentally goofy position this is. I suppose the leading cause of snake death is high cholesterol levels, eh?

Stella_Guru wrote:We should have remained a tree culture based on a diet of fruits, nuts, seeds, shoots and roots.
You think human beings used to live in trees? And you think there was ever a time when human culture didn't involve meat-eating? Um... no.

Stella_Guru wrote:Afterall, shouldn't compassionate living be about making the connections between the way we live and the way others suffer?
This is a fine moral philosophy, but it has nothing to do with how nature operates. I respect vegetarians who take this position, but it's a decidedly human construct, not any kind of reflection of a natural law.

Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Bludgeon » Tue Feb 18, 2014 6:01 pm

rabble wrote:From LiveStrong:
Nutrition Debate: Are Eggs Good For You?
Myth: Eggs make you fat Truth: Eggs are a great food for weight loss

Myth: Eggs raise your cholesterol Truth: Eggs don’t affect cholesterol levels

Myth: You should only eat egg whites Truth: Enjoy the entire egg -- yolk included)

Myth: Eating raw eggs allows you access to more nutrients Truth: Cook your eggs to ensure you access all the nutrients

When the warmists (rabble, J-Man, Wagstaff) have to resort to claiming eggs are good for you -- [(have a mild coronary, see if your doctor lets you eat them)://(he won't)\\] -- in order to support the ridiculous notion that industry financed research is worth accepting at face value, you know they have run out of dogma. I guess this is what's left. You'll notice that Snow, while still being on your side, has wisely slipped out of the tenuous argument you are using to hang yourselves with.

Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 9647
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm
Contact:

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Tue Feb 18, 2014 6:10 pm

Bludgeon wrote:When [Wagstaff] has to resort to claiming eggs are good for you in order to support the ridiculous notion that industry financed research is worth accepting at face value ...

Uh... I never said anything like this. Not even remotely.

Oh, and if you don't think climate change denial is sponsored by an industry, you're even more deluded than your posts suggest.

Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Bludgeon » Tue Feb 18, 2014 6:30 pm

DCB wrote:But your near-fanatical Denialism is entirely faith-based.


Denialism: a cult word for a cult doctrine. That cult? Warmism.


Return to “National Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 8 guests