Liberal Intellectual Elite ("LIE")

[MIPS]

What is the sceintific concensus on global warming?

Personally I dunno since global warming ate my homework on global warming, must be an epidemic since apparently the same thing happened to some folks working for the IPCC.

That being said, last time we checked the Sun remains too hot, ice remains too cold and the oceans remain just what Goldilocks ordered for lunch (although she did get a side of crude oil with it she wasn't expecting).

 

[Greenbeard]

No, like teaching that America is the root of all evil in the world.

Where were you taught that? High school? Undergrad? Graduate school?

I wasn't taught it; I've been around other people who were taught it.

And where were they taught it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

One must remember the I part is and can be all in the head of the LIE. They THINK they are smarter, they think they are better.

How do you tell a LIE? When they utter comments like, I know best, we know best, the Government knows best. Or, we only want to help you by taking away your rights. We know how best to regulate your life and future. It is for your own good we have taken away this or that right.

lol, grandpa claims to be retired military and then he condemns a life of being regulated, being told what to do, and having your rights taken away.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We should ask the liberals of Germany back then whether or not Hitler was their friend.

 

[daveman]

Where were you taught that? High school? Undergrad? Graduate school?

I wasn't taught it; I've been around other people who were taught it.

And where were they taught it?

Colleges and universities. I suppose some weak-minded fools learned it by reading leftist websites.

 

[MIPS]

lol, grandpa claims to be retired military and then he condemns a life of being regulated, being told what to do, and having your rights taken away.

Yeah the friggin nerve of some people demanding LIFE and LIBERTY , next thing you know these rascals will want to pursue happiness unmolested........ SHEESH.

 

[Truthmatters]

What is the sceintific concensus on global warming?

Personally I dunno since global warming ate my homework on global warming, must be an epidemic since apparently the same thing happened to some folks working for the IPCC.

That being said, last time we checked the Sun remains too hot, ice remains too cold and the oceans remain just what Goldilocks ordered for lunch (although she did get a side of crude oil with it she wasn't expecting).

aaahhhhh how cute you are when you are pretending you have an understanding of science.

If you want to learn you can , or is that against the rules of the republican party?

 

[daveman]

What is the sceintific concensus on global warming?

Personally I dunno since global warming ate my homework on global warming, must be an epidemic since apparently the same thing happened to some folks working for the IPCC.

That being said, last time we checked the Sun remains too hot, ice remains too cold and the oceans remain just what Goldilocks ordered for lunch (although she did get a side of crude oil with it she wasn't expecting).

aaahhhhh how cute you are when you are pretending you have an understanding of science.

If you want to learn you can , or is that against the rules of the republican party?

Again: What's your educational background? If you answered earlier, I apologize; I must have missed it.

You keep avoiding this question. Is it possible my little two-year degree is even more education than the awesomely intellectual Truthmatters has completed?

 

[Greenbeard]

I wasn't taught it; I've been around other people who were taught it.

And where were they taught it?

Colleges and universities. I suppose some weak-minded fools learned it by reading leftist websites.

Which colleges and universities?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wait? let me get this right.... Dude is talking conspiracy but YOU are not. The entire argument used by the warmist has been that ANY data that disagreed with them was cooked, that any person that disagreed with them was on the payroll of big oil. All with zero evidence and zero backing. And here you are repeating it while claiming the other side is nuts.

Apparently this went over your noggin. Ball lied on his C.V. It's documented. Pointing that out and then further questioning if anything he says is truthful is not an ad hominem attack. There is a legitimate fact pattern to work off of as opposed to simply attacking a person.

You are dismissed.

Yeah, whatever.

Wait, so leaving an investigation to a party that has a stake in the findings is not dishonest or problematic? You haven't a leg to stand on.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So that matters now?

Absolutely.

What would you have said had the RNC been put in charge of investigating

As it stands, I do not think that merely attacking the authors is a credible argument.

Yet that is EXACTLY what you do, attack the authors.

 

[Bfgrn]

In another thread it was suggested that Hitler could not possibly be a Leftist (he was) because the first people he supposed went after was the "Liberal Intellectual Elite ("LIE")"

I laughed so hard I snorted.

There are thousands of posters here at USMB, who among them would be considered "Liberal Intellectual Elite", I mean besides Jake Starkey, cause he's a "Republican"

I'm laughing again.

Can anybody nominate a poster as LIE?

The New Year 1938-39

by Joseph Goebbels

This ability to believe is rather weak in some circles, above all in those with money and education. They may trust more in pure cold reason than a glowing idealistic heart. Our so-called intellectuals do not like to hear this, but it is true anyway. They know so much that in the end they do not know what to do with their wisdom. They can see the past, but not much of the present, and nothing at all of the future. Their imagination is insufficient to deal with a distant goal in a way such that one already thinks it achieved.

They were also unable to believe in the victory of National Socialism while the National Socialist movement was still fighting for power. They are as little able today to believe in the greatness of our national German future. They perceive only what they can see, but not what is happening, and what will happen.

That is why their carping criticisms generally focus on laughable trivialities. Whenever some unavoidable difficulty pops up, the kind of thing that always happens, they are immediately inclined to doubt everything and to throw the baby out with the bath water. To them difficulties are not there to be mastered, but rather to be surrendered to.

One cannot make history with such quivering people. They are only chaff in God’s breath. Thankfully, they are only a thin intellectual or social upper class, particularly in the case of Germany. They are not an upper class in the sense that they govern the nation, but rather more a fact of nature like the bubbles of fat that always float on the surface of things.

Today, they seek to give good advice to National Socialist Germany from abroad. We do not have to ask them for it. They focus all their energies on the small problems that always are there, complain about the cost and believe that crises and unavoidable tensions are on the way. They are the complainers who never tire of bringing National Socialist Germany before the so-called court of world opinion. In the past they always found willing and thankful followers. Today, they only have a few backward intellectual Philistines in their camp.

The people want nothing to do with them. These Philistines are the 8/10 of one percent of the German people who have always said “no”, who always say “no” now, and who will always say “no” in the future. We cannot win them over, and do not even want to. They said “no” when Austria joined the Reich; they said “no” when the Sudetenland followed. They always say “no” as a matter of principle.

One does not need to take them all that seriously. They do not like us, but they do not like themselves any better. Why should we waste words on them? They are always living in the past and believe in success only when it has already happened, but then waste no time in claiming credit for it.

The people want nothing to do with these intellectual complainers. The year 1938 was filled with great and sometimes unnerving tension. But they are delighted at the close of this year with the Führer’s great historical successes.

 

[MIPS]

aaahhhhh how cute you are when you are pretending you have an understanding of science.

Personally I prefer to be referred to as handsome, but hey it's the thought that counts.....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That would require you guys to first provide an actual rebuttal.

Like I said, simply going ad hominem against the investigators simply tosses you in the conspiracy zone.

It's weak, but I didn't expect much better from you guys.

Such tactics might have worked for O.J. with Mark Furman. They won't work with most people.

Just to be clear: You accept the findings of the report because it's what you want to believe.

Right?

Uh no.

I accept it, like I accept global warming, because it is the consensus of experts in the field.

What consensus? There is none and never has been in science. You see science works on facts not the OPINION of the majority.

Go ahead cite for us a SINGLE experiment that justifies claiming CO2 made by man has caused the current warming period. Provide us a single experiment that sought to prove the point. I mean exactly how hard is it to use some scientific experiment to prove such a specific claim?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And off we go to conspiracy corner.

As I said, feel free to refute their findings based on the paper itself and not the authors.

I don't believe you've answered a question put to you earlier: Would you accept BP's investigation if it found no wrongdoing in the Gulf?

It's a non sequitur. I wouldn't accept an investigation by a private organization into it's own misdoing. I would accept an investigation experts in the field.

That latter is the case with the climategate findings.

But you would accept the word of an UNELECTED politician with an obvious stake in the outcome of the Investigation? Talk about stupid.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What is the sceintific concensus on global warming?


Let me clue you in, its not in line with your position.

You have to refuse sceince to retain your idiot ideas

REALLY? Cite for us a SINGLE scientific experiment that validates the claim that man made CO2 has caused the current warming trend. Cite for us ANY scientific experiment that provides any factual evidence man has caused the current warming trend.

Here let me help you, the warmers claimed for 20 years the Sun had NOTHING to do with the warming that it was mythical all caused by man. They have NEVER conducted a single experiment verifying the claim, NOT one.

Now since the warming stopped in 1998 they have claimed that the Sun did in fact cause it and that warming will return as soon as the sun heats up again. And yet once again not a single experiment proving or validating the idea that CO2 caused the heating to begin with, not a single one.

 

[geauxtohell]

I wasn't taught it; I've been around other people who were taught it.

And where were they taught it?

Colleges and universities. I suppose some weak-minded fools learned it by reading leftist websites.

You should have just said "at that one place".

Like I said, this is starting to sound more and more like an urban legend.

 

[geauxtohell]

Wait? let me get this right.... Dude is talking conspiracy but YOU are not. The entire argument used by the warmist has been that ANY data that disagreed with them was cooked, that any person that disagreed with them was on the payroll of big oil. All with zero evidence and zero backing. And here you are repeating it while claiming the other side is nuts.

Apparently this went over your noggin. Ball lied on his C.V. It's documented. Pointing that out and then further questioning if anything he says is truthful is not an ad hominem attack. There is a legitimate fact pattern to work off of as opposed to simply attacking a person.

You are dismissed.

Yeah, whatever.

Wait, so leaving an investigation to a party that has a stake in the findings is not dishonest or problematic? You haven't a leg to stand on.

So quick to call another man a liar. So slow to back it up.

That speaks to your integrity. Not mine.

I'd rather not waste anymore bandwidth on this thread with a dishonest dealer.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Apparently this went over your noggin. Ball lied on his C.V. It's documented. Pointing that out and then further questioning if anything he says is truthful is not an ad hominem attack. There is a legitimate fact pattern to work off of as opposed to simply attacking a person.



Yeah, whatever.

Wait, so leaving an investigation to a party that has a stake in the findings is not dishonest or problematic? You haven't a leg to stand on.

So quick to call another man a liar. So slow to back it up.

That speaks to your integrity. Not mine.

I'd rather not waste anymore bandwidth on this thread with a dishonest dealer.

Because you can not refute the simple fact that the investigation was run by a man with a Stake in its findings. An unelected Politician with ties to Carbon selling. He OWNS companies that DEPEND on man made global warming being the accepted view of things. BUT you would pretend otherwise.

Talk about a coward and a dishonest broker, you are both.

 

[geauxtohell]

Wait, so leaving an investigation to a party that has a stake in the findings is not dishonest or problematic? You haven't a leg to stand on.

So quick to call another man a liar. So slow to back it up.

That speaks to your integrity. Not mine.

I'd rather not waste anymore bandwidth on this thread with a dishonest dealer.

Because you can not refute the simple fact that the investigation was run by a man with a Stake in its findings. An unelected Politician with ties to Carbon selling. He OWNS companies that DEPEND on man made global warming being the accepted view of things. BUT you would pretend otherwise.

Talk about a coward and a dishonest broker, you are both.

Like I said: "so slow to back it up".

If you can demonstrate that I lied about anything, you'd look like aces on this thread.

You know I haven't.

Like I said, you have the integrity problem. Not me.