Global Warming aka Atheism's Wrong Turn

[Bern80]

Please explain exactly who I am attributing "beliefs and assumptions" onto, and who those individuals are.

First and foremost me, but it seems to be a general trend with anyone you don't agree with. I think it's really amusing that you attribute so many beliefs to people that are inaccurate. If you didn't you would probably find there is more common ground than you think.

You rely wayyyy too much on one persons research & book for your opinions about global warming. When I asked for backup evidence you cited his bibliography and got a list of people who support him from his home-made website.

Again that is a false assumption which you continue to insist upon. I know as well as you do to put all or most stock in the idea that one theory is the truth over all others is silly. All I have done is continue to point out there are other scientifcally legitamte theories for what we're seeing. And they warrant attention before the next liberal quack claims we must take drastic measures to avoid the 'emergency'. RGS is correct when he points out there is very little good evidence to support the idea that it is predominantly man makeing the Earth warmer.

A little common sense alone should lend credance to the idea that there are other possibilities as to why the earth is warming. History being the big one. We know it has been significantly warmer than it is now far prior to industrialization. Greenland was named Greenland for a reason you know. Scientific theories continue to emerge as well regarding sun cycles and there effect on climate. Do you honestly believe the evidence of ice ages and warming trends that Earth's temperature was constant and non-volatile right up until industrialization? You may very well expose yourself to other ideas though you have also show you will remain truly obstinate about it insisting, despite little to know mreit, that basically anything oppossed to anthropogenic global warming is non-credible. It isn't me who has put all my stock in one theory with blinders on to all other ideas. It's you. Do really think those that believe an alternative theory is most likely want to be wrong? It is my best interest and that of world's that every scientific avenue is exhausted before declaring we didn't create this problem.

 

[eots]

I dont know how much global warming is man made or how effective we can be at reducng it. I do know the fact is being explotied for globalist political agendas that have nothing to do with global warming

 

[Bern80]

I dont know how much global warming is man made or how effective we can be at reducng it. I do know the fact is being explotied for globalist political agendas that have nothing to do with global warming

that Al Gore won a peace prize for it should be proof enough of that.

 

[Larkinn]

RGS is correct when he points out there is very little good evidence to support the idea that it is predominantly man makeing the Earth warmer.

Most of your post is the same tired of shit you repeat everywhere. But, there is one thing which is amusing.

I'm sorry...where in "there is no science" did you get the idea that there is "very little" good evidence? Oh wait, I see, you were assuming a more charitable interpretation of his statements. Or was this just you lying again?

 

[Larkinn]

A word of advice Bern...not that I really mind because its hilarious when you do this. But if you are going to attempt to criticize me, do it 1) Accurately and 2) about something which you don't do. Or clean up your own act before you go around all holier than thou attempting to tell me how to act.

 

[Bern80]

A word of advice Bern...not that I really mind because its hilarious when you do this. But if you are going to attempt to criticize me, do it 1) Accurately and 2) about something which you don't do. Or clean up your own act before you go around all holier than thou attempting to tell me how to act.

I think you know how useless that suggestion is. After all you obviously haven't taken it to heart when I gave it to you.

 

[Bern80]

Most of your post is the same tired of shit you repeat everywhere. But, there is one thing which is amusing.

I'm sorry...where in "there is no science" did you get the idea that there is "very little" good evidence? Oh wait, I see, you were assuming a more charitable interpretation of his statements. Or was this just you lying again?

I believe it's called paraphrasing. But you go ahead and focus on semantics instead of the issue itself. And why does the left have such a problem with the definition of the word 'lie'?

 

[Larkinn]

I think you know how useless that suggestion is. After all you obviously haven't taken it to heart when I gave it to you.

Thats because you failed on #1 of the test as well. Failure for multiple reasons, a spectacular defeat.

I believe it's called paraphrasing

No, actually paraphrasing is saying the same thing as someone else said, in a different way. What you did was say something ELSE that someone else said, in a different way.

But you go ahead and focus on semantics

Semantics? You mean pointing out your hypocrisy? I will. Its amusing.

instead of the issue itself.

The issue? The issue is you trying, and failing, to psychoanalyze me. I am sticking to that issue and mocking you for how utterly pathetic and idiotic it is.

And why does the left have such a problem with the definition of the word 'lie'?

Please, oh wise Bern, tell me how I used the definition incorrectly. Be careful not to assume anything in your description.

 

[Bern80]

No, actually paraphrasing is saying the same thing as someone else said, in a different way. What you did was say something ELSE that someone else said, in a different way.

Semantics? You mean pointing out your hypocrisy? I will. Its amusing.[/QUOTE]

apperently we don't understand the word hypocrisy either.

The issue? The issue is you trying, and failing, to psychoanalyze me. I am sticking to that issue and mocking you for how utterly pathetic and idiotic it is.

When someone is as void of ovjectivity and incapable of haveing a reasonable conversation, who focuses more on semantics than the issue, then most likely there is an element of personal psychology in the way. I know and most on this board know that where you are concerned that issue is arrogance. It's the only real explanation for why you avoid issues and get into semantical debates

Please, oh wise Bern, tell me how I used the definition incorrectly. Be careful not to assume anything in your description.

A lie requires knowledge of the truth and deliberate attempt to mis-characterize it.

 

[Larkinn]

apperently we don't understand the word hypocrisy either.

I understand it fine, boyo.

When someone is as void of ovjectivity and incapable of haveing a reasonable conversation, who focuses more on semantics than the issue, then most likely there is an element of personal psychology in the way.

Funny, its only some of the conservatives on this particular board who have ever thought that. I guess its a feature of people who go to boards where most agree with them who think that anyone who disagrees with them is not objective.

And really...judging someones personal psychology from their actions on a messageboard is ludicrous, absurd, and moronic. But it does provide a laugh, so keep at it. Tell me which theories of psychology are you using Bern? Where were you trained in psychology? What prestigious undergrad were you a psych major at?

I know and most on this board know that where you are concerned that issue is arrogance.

tsk tsk...speaking for the rest of the board again Bern? Assuming yet again. You really can't get over it can you.

It's the only real explanation for why you avoid issues and get into semantical debates

How about this: I realize that language matters and if you want to have any real conversation with someone who disagrees with you, one needs to figure out what the terms are, what exactly they mean when they say something, and why they say that.

Oh wait...but I guess I could just assume all that.

Of course if I assumed it, you'd be all mad at me for that. Is it perhaps that your gripe with me is not anything realistic? Rather you dislike me because you want to win on the internet and you feel stymied by this "arrogant" young pup who recognizes you for the utter dumbass that you are?

A lie requires knowledge of the truth and deliberate attempt to mis-characterize it.

Are you unable to read? Do you have comprehension problems?

I asked tell me how I used the definition incorrectly. If I wanted a definition of what a lie is, I have more intelligent things to get it from. Such as a book.

 

[Gunny]

That was the purpose of the IPCC.



And if its not you and the folks who don't believe may end up dooming us all.

And if it's not, you and the folks crashing wildly into the woods shooting at anything that moves instead of acquiring an actual, legitimate target may end up doomed anyway.

 

[Gunny]

Y'all are like ... "My car won't run ... I'll start trying to make it run by getting new tires and a new antenna ball for it."

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The only reason people on the left do not tell you what an idiot you are when you play semantics is because you agree with them.

You do not argue a point, you try to twist what people say and you purposefully try to change the argument not about the point, but rather some word definition.

You almost never actually state YOUR point, playing semantics so that you have an out when caught. You and maineman both played the game with the word lie. Arguing that since one definition is any thing that was not true was a lie meant Bush lied. Ignoring intent. Until your caught the same way, then it is all about intent.

You play games with words in an effort to twist, to obfusicate issues. You almost never state your position on an issue and play the " words are important" game, which really means " I can change the subject"

You know it or your to stupid to know your own games.

As for intelligence, you HAVE stated your smarter than all but maybe a couple people on this board. You routinely claim your smarter than most anybody you do argue with. You wear your supposed intellect on your sleeve and use it to try and win arguments, not on merit of ideas but because you claim you are just smarter than others.

You play games and we all know it. You know it too. Its your whole shtic.

 

[jillian]

Please don't speak for "people on the left"... as if a) you have any understanding of how others' think; or b) the "LEFT" is some homogeneous entity where there's total agreement.

"I do not belong to an organized political party; I'm a Democrat" -- Will Rogers.

As for "word games" and "semantics", most of the people who say that simply can't keep up with him.

 

[Larkinn]

And if it's not, you and the folks crashing wildly into the woods shooting at anything that moves instead of acquiring an actual, legitimate target may end up doomed anyway.

Not really. The repercussions if the IPCC folks are right are far far worse than any economic damage we could do ourselves.

 

[Gunny]

Not really. The repercussions if the IPCC folks are right are far far worse than any economic damage we could do ourselves.

The problem with this is the "if."

What "if" Iran pops up with a nuke tomorrow? You can't have an "if" as a standard of proof on one issue, but demand concrete, unimpeachable evidence on the other.

I have no problem doing what we can to curb any man-made global warming. But I first want to see the evidence that it IS man-made.

How can one even suggest enacting random legislation against whatever they think might be causing it? That is not logical at all, IMO.

 

[Larkinn]

The only reason people on the left do not tell you what an idiot you are when you play semantics is because you agree with them.

Considering you are unable to understand basic sentences, or make them half the time, I really advise you not to speak for "the left". It looks like someone else on "the left" already decided to tell you how stupid that was. Consider it repeated.

You do not argue a point, you try to twist what people say and you purposefully try to change the argument not about the point, but rather some word definition.

Blah blah blah...same old shit, different day. I've responded to this. If you care to maybe address my points when I respond to you I'll do it for real. Until then, you don't get real anwsers.

You almost never actually state YOUR point, playing semantics so that you have an out when caught. You and maineman both played the game with the word lie. Arguing that since one definition is any thing that was not true was a lie meant Bush lied. Ignoring intent. Until your caught the same way, then it is all about intent.

Umm no, I argue that I don't lie because you are too stupid to understand what I am saying, not some crap about intent is different. And I always state my point, its just not always directly relevant to the position. I don't need to have the anwser to something to know that someone elses anwser is asinine.

You play games with words in an effort to twist, to obfusicate issues. You almost never state your position on an issue and play the " words are important" game, which really means " I can change the subject"

Didn't you already say this? I mean, in this post. You've said it throughout the board about 400 times by now. But at least keep it to once a post.

By the way RGS...you ever respond to your 6-3 idiocy or when Shogun ripped you a new one in that Iran thread? Nope? Didn't think so. Or how about when you started that thread, with beautiful almost clairvoyant timing, about how liberals say shit and leave threads

You know it or your to stupid to know your own games.

Right. You know me better than I know myself RGS. And over the internet no less. I wonder what prestigious institution YOU got your psych degree at?

As for intelligence, you HAVE stated your smarter than all but maybe a couple people on this board.

Yes, I have. Congratulations on getting something right.

You routinely claim your smarter than most anybody you do argue with.

Thats because people I argue with routinely have the stupidity to mention my intellect.

You wear your supposed intellect on your sleeve and use it to try and win arguments, not on merit of ideas but because you claim you are just smarter than others.

Umm, no. Try finding the last ten threads where my intellect was brought up. I'd be willing to bet that in 10 of 10, someone else brought it up first. You and a few others are obsessed with what I think of my intellect. I know I'm interesting, but really, get over me.

You play games and we all know it. You know it too. Its your whole shtic.

I do now. I used to treat you and your ilk seriously until I realized that you are all just a bunch of dumbfucks. Now? No, I don't take you seriously. You follow me around on various threads saying retarded shit and trying to analyze me. Yes I'm going to fuck with you. Cry me a river.

 

[Larkinn]

The problem with this is the "if."

What "if" Iran pops up with a nuke tomorrow? You can't have an "if" as a standard of proof on one issue, but demand concrete, unimpeachable evidence on the other.

They are both "if" statements. But Iran having a nuke won't doom the world, its only if it decides to use that. And that is predictable, imo. Is it dangerous? Yes. Will it lead to worlds end? I think not.

I have no problem doing what we can to curb any man-made global warming. But I first want to see the evidence that it IS man-made.

There is lots of evidence that it is. Is it conclusive? No. Will it ever be conclusive? No. But 5 years ago this exact same discussion was going on except it wasnt "is man the cause of global warming" it was "is the earth warming at all?". Oh, and glory be, its indisputable that now it is.

I'm reminded of the debate between evolution and creationists. Evolution gets connection after connection right, prediction after prediction is right and still people say "well its not proven yet". No, its not. It won't ever be. There are limits to human knowledge. You want to think that its massive coincidence that evolution just happens to match up with vast empirical data? Fine. Rot in your own ignorance, thats cool. But you want to think that its just a coincidence that man-made global warming matches up with empirical data? That suddenly matters a hell of a lot.

How can one even suggest enacting random legislation against whatever they think might be causing it? That is not logical at all, IMO.

Because a very large number of very qualified people believe they know for sure what is causing it. They don't have the political solutions to stop it, but they think they know whats causing it.

 

[Diuretic]

This is why the conference in Bali is a good idea. Of course there needs to be a mood of scepticism, there has to be evidence of causes provided because if it isn't then the electorates of every country represented at the conference will not just be sceptical but will feel as if they've been fooled and we know how electorates act when they think they've been suckered.

The fierce denialists are on the other end of the curve from the fierce promoters of the idea of human-influenced global climate change. Somewhere between them lies the actuality.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Please don't speak for "people on the left"... as if a) you have any understanding of how others' think; or b) the "LEFT" is some homogeneous entity where there's total agreement.

"I do not belong to an organized political party; I'm a Democrat" -- Will Rogers.

As for "word games" and "semantics", most of the people who say that simply can't keep up with him.

Change that to right or republican or even Bush and I suggest you take your own advice, or wait I forgot, dems/libs don't take advice they are to smart for that.