Deal With People Who Ignore Science Facts

[daveman]

Or you could just do like Wry Catcher and Old Rocks did in this thread: Blame victims of weather phenomena for not voting Democrat -- because that would have prevented the bad weather.

OK, asshole, here is what I said in that thread;

Even on a worldwide scale, the climatic events of the last twelve months are within scope of a cluster of stronger than normal events caused by the strong La Nina. Barely.

By 2025, if we continue to see more of these types of events, we may be able to look back and say this was the beginning of the change. For sure, we know that the Arctic is already undergoing major changes. As are the alpine areas of the world. We are creating a very interesting future for our descendents. I doubt they will appreciate it.

You are a baldfaced liar, Dave.

Is that your only post in the thread?

Hint: No.

You defended Wry Catcher, saying his post demonstrated sympathy and horror.

In fact, it did no such thing. His post blamed the citizens of Joplin for their tragedy: "I don't know. I suspect the residents of Joplin, MO; Tuscaloosa, AL and the states which border the Mississippi River and its tributaries might be beginning to question the conventional wisdom (i.e. propaganda) of the right wing spin machine."

If there's a wrong side to an issue, you jump on it with both feet.

 

[Old Rocks]

Damn, how in the hell do you get Wry Catcher blaming those catastrophes on the victims of those storms?

"I don't know. I suspect the residents of Joplin, MO; Tuscaloosa, AL and the states which border the Mississippi River and its tributaries might be beginning to question the conventional wisdom (i.e. propaganda) of the right wing spin machine."

Now where does he blame the citizens for their own plight? What he says is that the disasters might start them to thinking that the wingnut denial machine are a bunch of liars, like you.

 

[daveman]

Damn, how in the hell do you get Wry Catcher blaming those catastrophes on the victims of those storms?

"I don't know. I suspect the residents of Joplin, MO; Tuscaloosa, AL and the states which border the Mississippi River and its tributaries might be beginning to question the conventional wisdom (i.e. propaganda) of the right wing spin machine."

Now where does he blame the citizens for their own plight? What he says is that the disasters might start them to thinking that the wingnut denial machine are a bunch of liars, like you.

Where's the sympathy and horror you claimed was in there?

Oh, yes -- nowhere. You lied.

 

[whitehall]

The source "Upworthy" is a left wing blog site related to "Move-On'. Can't radical lefties find stuff that is like fair and balanced?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

It is the AGW "Faithers'" who "Ignore Science Facts."

Hell, those stupid pussies (and lots of their gullible lolberal supporters) ignore the basic PRECEPTS of actual science.

Those abject pussy idiots think science is settled by a consensus.

 

[Abraham3]

Anyone who believes scientific truths are determined by "consensus" doesn't know the first thing about science.

Hello Patrick,

So, how ARE they determined?

 

[Abraham3]

Those abject pussy idiots think science is settled by a consensus.

So, Ilar, how is science settled?

 

[Stephanie]

I'm not going to STAKE my life on people in science who first said, coffee and eggs were bad bad bad for you, then come out a few years later and say, oops they aren't as bad as we first thought...

but it is us who is the deniers and who don't BOW DOWN at the feet of Science and scientist.....that cracks me up

 

[Abraham3]

I'm not going to STAKE my life on people in science who first said, coffee and eggs were bad bad bad for you, then come out a few years later and say, oops they aren't as bad as we first thought...

but it is us who is the deniers and who don't BOW DOWN at the feet of Science and scientist.....that cracks me up

I was unaware that anthropogenic global warming was the work of the same people who thought coffee and eggs were bad for you. What an amazing coincidence.

But to get back on topic, do you think rejecting the viewpoint of 97% of climate scientists indicates an acceptance of mainstream science? How does that work, exactly?

 

[Stephanie]

I'm not going to STAKE my life on people in science who first said, coffee and eggs were bad bad bad for you, then come out a few years later and say, oops they aren't as bad as we first thought...

but it is us who is the deniers and who don't BOW DOWN at the feet of Science and scientist.....that cracks me up

I was unaware that anthropogenic global warming was the work of the same people who thought coffee and eggs were bad for you. What an amazing coincidence.

But to get back on topic, do you think rejecting the viewpoint of 97% of climate scientists indicates an acceptance of mainstream science? How does that work, exactly?

you got the talking point down of the climate change CULT...97%...why the hell not just make it...100%...and I'm NOT TAKING the words of countries and their scientist who have no care about OURS to RUN our country with.... people like you and Obama is what's scary and DAMN harmful to us and our country

 

[Abraham3]

you got the talking point down of the climate change CULT...97%...why the hell not just make it...100%.

If you like. It's certainly closer to the reality than is the denialist position

..and I'm TAKING the words of countries and their scientist who have no care about OURS to RUN our country with.

I'm not clear what you're saying here but would I be correct in assuming that you have less confidence in the conclusions of foreign scientists than you have in those of American scientists? Do you believe foreign scientists are pushing AGW out of a hostility towards the United States?

... people like you and Obama is what's scary and DAMN harmful to us and our country

In what way do you find Obama and I scary? Is it that when the vast majority of climate experts tell us that we need to reduce GHG emissions, we assume they're correct and start looking for ways to do that? I'm wondering why, if you're prone to be scared, you aren't scared for the world that your children, their children and their children will inherit from us. I wonder that you don't picture those descendants sitting in school learning why their great grandparents didn't act when they had been clearly warned of the consequences. I see them shaking their head and looking out the window at the altered landscape we will have allowed to come to be.

Or is it simply that you believe Obama and I are hostile to our own nation?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Those abject pussy idiots think science is settled by a consensus.

So, Ilar, how is science settled?

Experimentation, testing, repetition.

Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results

-- Steps of the Scientific Method

Go back to high school immediately. They done ya wrong.

You evidently came out imagining (incorrectly) that it has something to do with a majority vote.

 

[Abraham3]

Those abject pussy idiots think science is settled by a consensus.

So, Ilar, how is science settled?

Experimentation, testing, repetition.

Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results

-- Steps of the Scientific Method

Go back to high school immediately. They done ya wrong.

You evidently came out imagining (incorrectly) that it has something to do with a majority vote.

Okay. Now who determines whether or not all these steps have successfully taken place?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

So, Ilar, how is science settled?

Experimentation, testing, repetition.

Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results

-- Steps of the Scientific Method

Go back to high school immediately. They done ya wrong.

You evidently came out imagining (incorrectly) that it has something to do with a majority vote.

Okay. Now who determines whether or not all these steps have successfully taken place?

Anybody who grasps the meaning of the experiment can assess it.

It still isn't a matter of a majority vote.

Plus, to be considered what is often called "good science" the test has to be able to be replicated.

If one is not a scientist, that may mean that one is not in the best position to offer a useful or meaningful critique of the science allegedly supporting the hypothesis or the testing. But that STILL doesn't mean that it involves the principles of democracy.

Back in the day you might have gotten 7 out of 10 so-called scientists to agree that a good quality phlogiston yields the most powerful flame. But that still wouldn't qualify as good science. A majority vote, perhaps. But not science.

 

[PMZ]

Experimentation, testing, repetition.

-- Steps of the Scientific Method

Go back to high school immediately. They done ya wrong.

You evidently came out imagining (incorrectly) that it has something to do with a majority vote.

Okay. Now who determines whether or not all these steps have successfully taken place?

Anybody who grasps the meaning of the experiment can assess it.

It still isn't a matter of a majority vote.

Plus, to be considered what is often called "good science" the test has to be able to be replicated.

If one is not a scientist, that may mean that one is not in the best position to offer a useful or meaningful critique of the science allegedly supporting the hypothesis or the testing. But that STILL doesn't mean that it involves the principles of democracy.

Back in the day you might have gotten 7 out of 10 so-called scientists to agree that a good quality phlogiston yields the most powerful flame. But that still wouldn't qualify as good science. A majority vote, perhaps. But not science.

Your idea that, because hypotheses are studied to determine their validity, and some are proven invalid, means that all of science is questionable, is bizarre in the extreme.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Okay. Now who determines whether or not all these steps have successfully taken place?

Anybody who grasps the meaning of the experiment can assess it.

It still isn't a matter of a majority vote.

Plus, to be considered what is often called "good science" the test has to be able to be replicated.

If one is not a scientist, that may mean that one is not in the best position to offer a useful or meaningful critique of the science allegedly supporting the hypothesis or the testing. But that STILL doesn't mean that it involves the principles of democracy.

Back in the day you might have gotten 7 out of 10 so-called scientists to agree that a good quality phlogiston yields the most powerful flame. But that still wouldn't qualify as good science. A majority vote, perhaps. But not science.

Your idea that, because hypotheses are studied to determine their validity, and some are proven invalid, means that all of science is questionable, is bizarre in the extreme.

That, of course, is not my idea. It's not even a rational inference from anything I have ever said.

What is truly bizarre is your need to lie so endlessly and obviously.

 

[PMZ]

Anybody who grasps the meaning of the experiment can assess it.

It still isn't a matter of a majority vote.

Plus, to be considered what is often called "good science" the test has to be able to be replicated.

If one is not a scientist, that may mean that one is not in the best position to offer a useful or meaningful critique of the science allegedly supporting the hypothesis or the testing. But that STILL doesn't mean that it involves the principles of democracy.

Back in the day you might have gotten 7 out of 10 so-called scientists to agree that a good quality phlogiston yields the most powerful flame. But that still wouldn't qualify as good science. A majority vote, perhaps. But not science.

Your idea that, because hypotheses are studied to determine their validity, and some are proven invalid, means that all of science is questionable, is bizarre in the extreme.

That, of course, is not my idea. It's not even a rational inference from anything I have ever said.

What is truly bizarre is your need to lie so endlessly and obviously.

You said 'back in the day you might have gotten 7 out of 10 so-called scientists to agree that a good quality phlogiston yields the most powerful flame'

That’s called a hypothesis being tested.

One reason that you are so unqualified to even talk about science, is that you don't comprehend the scientific process. There are thinks proven, and things under investigation.

AGW is given. The process by which the Earth restores energy balance is under study.

 

[flacaltenn]

This thread OP illustrates how scientific illiteracy DRIVES the political left to doing moronic things.

Things that they think are humorous and clever, but makes them look silly.
The concept that 0.5deg change in surface temp GLOBALLY in their lifetime is responsible for every extreme weather event demonstrates how little they know about the PREREQUISITES for extreme weather.

This current hurricane season is a prime example.. Despite MAJOR indications of an active season -- what is the current EXCUSE for the hurricane drought??

One is that warmer air aloft is SUPPRESSING storm formation in the tropical Atlantic..
Time to school the kidlets better.. So they don't become dupes and laughing stocks..

 

[PMZ]

This thread OP illustrates how scientific illiteracy DRIVES the political left to doing moronic things.

Things that they think are humorous and clever, but makes them look silly.
The concept that 0.5deg change in surface temp GLOBALLY in their lifetime is responsible for every extreme weather event demonstrates how little they know about the PREREQUISITES for extreme weather.

This current hurricane season is a prime example.. Despite MAJOR indications of an active season -- what is the current EXCUSE for the hurricane drought??

One is that warmer air aloft is SUPPRESSING storm formation in the tropical Atlantic..
Time to school the kidlets better.. So they don't become dupes and laughing stocks..

Apparently, you believe that you are the first person in history to fully understand the detailed thermodynamics of weather, and therefore can accurately predict the earth's response to AGW, and therefore know that what we see now disproves the simple facts of planetary radiative energy balance.

All of that from a political junkie.

I can't wait for your history making lecture to the IPCC revealing how you trumped them given your lack of scientific education and resources.

 

[flacaltenn]

This thread OP illustrates how scientific illiteracy DRIVES the political left to doing moronic things.

Things that they think are humorous and clever, but makes them look silly.
The concept that 0.5deg change in surface temp GLOBALLY in their lifetime is responsible for every extreme weather event demonstrates how little they know about the PREREQUISITES for extreme weather.

This current hurricane season is a prime example.. Despite MAJOR indications of an active season -- what is the current EXCUSE for the hurricane drought??

One is that warmer air aloft is SUPPRESSING storm formation in the tropical Atlantic..
Time to school the kidlets better.. So they don't become dupes and laughing stocks..

Apparently, you believe that you are the first person in history to fully understand the detailed thermodynamics of weather, and therefore can accurately predict the earth's response to AGW, and therefore know that what we see now disproves the simple facts of planetary radiative energy balance.

All of that from a political junkie.

I can't wait for your history making lecture to the IPCC revealing how you trumped them given your lack of scientific education and resources.

The armies of useful dupes on the left are just as numerous and LESS PREPARED to think and WORK on their understanding of the science issues.. I doubt that any of the morons blaming "superstorm" Sandy on AGW could list even 2 prerequisites for tropical storm development..

Got an idea for a useless troll.. Why don't YOU list all the prerequisite conditions for hurricanes, tornadoes, derechos and blizzards and then tell us how 0.5deg increase will affect the statistics..

Don't need to be a pedigreed meterologist. A private pilot license and an INTEREST in weather is sufficient.

Can you handle THAT PMZ??? or are you a one-note parrot?? What DOES 0.5deg mean to hurricane formation or intensity?? ((There is an answer to that if you know anything on the topic))

Betcha STILL DON'T want to discuss any of the hard stuff --- DO YOU? You're just here to bless the lying about "climate change" being visible in every weather report --- aren't you? That's what you'd expect from a clown-worshipping disciple of Stuart Smalley (aka Al Franken)..