Saigon
Gold Member
And there you have it.
There is not a word I can add to such a wonderful, priceless post. This quote should be framed in every school in America as a symbol for young children as to what ignorance looks like.
Last edited:
AGW: atmospheric physics
- Thread starter Star
- Start date
And there you have it.
There is not a word I can add to such a wonderful, priceless post. This quote should be framed in every school in America as a symbol for young children as to what ignorance looks like.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
For SSDD, if there are no clicking bootheels and sieg hiels, it ain't conservative.
SSDD
Gold Member
- Nov 6, 2012
- 16,672
- 1,968
- 280
Conservative government is by definition small and unobtrusive rocks. Liberalism is inherently authoritarian as authoritarinanism is the only way to enforce the ideal.
Seems you don't know any more about political philosophy than you know about climate science.
Saigon
Gold Member
Well, SSDD, for my money this board has never seen a funnier or more completely stupid post.
How you could possibly imagine any other poster on the forum could be as confused as you is beyond me. I suggest a little more humility might be in order - at least until a few people have forgotten this one!
How you could possibly imagine any other poster on the forum could be as confused as you is beyond me. I suggest a little more humility might be in order - at least until a few people have forgotten this one!
Last edited:
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
Average of GISS, NCDC, and HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature anomalies from January 1970 through November 2012 (green) with linear trends applied to the timeframes Jan '70 - Oct '77, Apr '77 - Dec '86, Sep '87 - Nov '96, Jun '97 - Dec '02, Nov '02 - Nov '12.
Probably the 40th time that simple-minded graph toy was shown here. Problem is for you and the alarmists -- your theory and models all predict constant linear rates of warming due SOLELY to correlation with CO2 levels. There is no part of AGW theory to explain banking of temperature changes for a decade or so.. Other than hand-waving about masking effects of real pollution which has been steadily declining in our lifetimes.
So if the silly ass meaningless number of Average Yearly Mean Surface Temperature has barely budged for 12 or 14 years ---- YOU --- need a better theory... THAT'S what that childish animated graph really says to anyone who has has any math or science...
SSDD
Gold Member
- Nov 6, 2012
- 16,672
- 1,968
- 280
Being completely unaquainted with the truth, I can see that it might appear strange to you. Funny though? I don't see it, but then you really aren't all there, are you?
Of course modern liberalism is authoritarian in nature. It has to be. It is surprising that you are unaware of that fact. If you were a thinking person, it should have become obvious to you when you realized that you couldn't even name 3 things that you can do in your little socialist hell with no government inerference at either the national, regional, or local level. Guess that proves that you aren't a thinking person.
Consider modern liberalism. It is a political philosophy that claims equality and equal freedom as its ultimate goal. Ask any liberal to describe their philosophy and without fail, you will get some variation of “live and let live. In an effort to achieve this goal, however, liberalism requires supervision of everything. Its multicultural ideal excludes and stigmatizes regular people and in order to enforce its equality, it uses quotas, speech codes, and mandatory sensitivity training in politically correct attitudes and opinions. Clearly, there is little connection between those things and “live and let live”.
Liberals prize tolerance, but what they call tolerance is not tolerance at all. Correct me if I am wrong, but tolerance means letting people do what they want. Modern liberals, however have redefined tolerance (redefinition – a nasty habit of modern liberals) to mean a requirement of equal respect across the social spectrum. True tolerance requires live and let live, but the tolerance of the modern liberal requires an ever more invasive bureaucratic control of every aspect of our social lives. An ideology that “requires” equal respect across the social spectrum must, by definition be intolerant because it must try to control the attitudes that people have towards one another and any real attempt to that end will require means that are both inflexible and tyrannical.
Lets compare two states. One is the conservative ideal and the other is the modern liberal ideal. In the conservative state, you can say and do pretty much whatever you like so long as you do not violate certain established rights. The conservative state doesnÂ’t care whether you are tolerant or intolerant so long as you donÂ’t physically attack others or damage their property. The conservative state, as a result may be very critical of certain social failures, as it would have a very limited social welfare system. In the conservative sate, you would be free to succeed or fail with interference from the state being limited to enforcing those clearly defined rights that were spoken of earlier.
In the homogenous welfare state that modern liberals favor, however, things are quite different. In its effort to promote equal respect and tolerance across the social spectrum, the modern liberal state finds that it must be very intolerant of ways of life that it defines as sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. By establishing quotas, the state will force people to associate with others against their will, literally denying them the right to choose what sorts of people they will live near and work with.
The liberal state will be uable to accept that ethnic loyalties, and religious and sexual distinctions form the structures by which all people organize their lives and as a result will find that it must, in fact, be intolerant of all real ways of life and must, by force of law, reconstruct them. This new tolerance as found in the modern liberal state means that no one, with the exception of a few elite ideologues gets to carry out his or her life by their own design.
The ideology of modern liberalism with regard to tolerance seems to be based on the idea that each person is as good as every other person and whatever a person likes is good for him. In order to believe this, however, one must accept that one way of living is as good as all other ways of living because to suggest that one way was better or worse than another would by definition be an act of intolerance.
This is a very peculiar, and very specific moral theory. One must view each person impartially as valuable, but everything else as valuable only as defined by the individual. A society that holds such a moral theory must therefore define anyone who holds a moral code that recognizes any sort of absolute good or bad as intolerant.
Since modern liberalism holds such a narrow and dubious moral theory that very few people indeed actually hold, how then, is it any different from old “theocratic” systems that it labels as intolerant? Is it better, somehow, to be indoctrinated in the dogma and delusion of all inclusiveness than that of one church or another? A panel of civil rights lawyers is certainly no more forgiving than a panel of robed priests and in all likelihood, less forgiving.
Upon close examination it is obvious that modern liberalism holds all of the elements necessary to become authoritarian and totalitarian; and in practice has already exhibited a streak of tyranny ranging from mandatory sensitivity training to the “thought police” mentality of actually punishing criminals more harshly based on what they may have been thinking when they committed their particular crime. (hate crime law) In the name of equal freedom and equality for all, modern liberalism is willing to empower government bureaucracy to make us all, by force if necessary, into its image.
I don't believe it is possible to defend the idea authoritarian views are not liberal views. It may be true that liberals don't see themselves and their philosophy as authoritarian but that, in and of itself, is just sad evidence that they have not invested much thought into thier philosophy carried it to its logical end. The great leftist tyrants of the 20th century weren't expressing conservative ideals, they were simply men who were able to carry liberal theory to its logical end.
numan
What! Me Worry?
- Mar 23, 2013
- 2,125
- 241
- 130
Well, I will agree with you on that one.
Does that mean those who believe in a Flat Earth should get equal press coverage as those who are sane?
I think educated people are just not very interested in those who don't know what they are talking about.
.
depotoo
Diamond Member
- Sep 9, 2012
- 40,720
- 13,434
- 2,280
so I guess you claim the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is insane, as well as the over 31,000 other scientists?
http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM150.pdf
Global Warming Petition Project
Last edited:
Of course it does. Intelligent, intellectually honest people are not threatened by loons and fools. We can argue them under a bus in a New York minute so we aren't afraid of them.
Funny how the warmists are terrified of sceptics getting their message out to the rest of the world isn't it? Reminds me of something that happened a long time ago...now what was it????? Oh yeah!
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WJXHY2OXGE]No one expects the Spanish Inquisition - YouTube[/ame]
RollingThunder
Gold Member
- Mar 22, 2010
- 4,818
- 525
- 155
LOLOLOL......well, since you ask, YES, they are indeed quite insane, you poor deluded moron, and so are you for falling for their BullCrap.
Oregon Petition
depotoo
Diamond Member
- Sep 9, 2012
- 40,720
- 13,434
- 2,280
oh please. That source has no verification of their qualifications.
depotoo
Diamond Member
- Sep 9, 2012
- 40,720
- 13,434
- 2,280
RollingThunder
Gold Member
- Mar 22, 2010
- 4,818
- 525
- 155
And that's why all of the intelligent, intellectually honest people laugh at you moronic denier cult loons and fools.
LOLOLOL.....another one of your laughable delusions. You personally couldn't "argue" your way out of a wet paper bag.
Another of your many delusions, walleyed. The only thing that messages from you denier cult nitwits convey is how incredibly deluded and retarded you all are. No one is "terrified" by that, unless you've redefined "terrified" to mean 'rolling on the floor laughing'.
numan
What! Me Worry?
- Mar 23, 2013
- 2,125
- 241
- 130
.
...we might start looking at some facts.
As an example of my typical, open-hearted, generous nature, I will even begin by agreeing with a statement which is often made by those who flail away at the fact of Global Heating.
The earth has been cooling for the last 70 million years.
Climate History
First, let us get the chronology straight. The Triassic Period extended from about 250 million years ago to 205 mya.
70 mya was in the late Cretaceous, just before the dinosaurs went extinct.
As you can see from this chart at the linked site, there have been many ups and downs in climate over the geologic eras [for example, there was a severe ice age in the Permian Period, just before it got hot in the Triassic] --- but it is true that over the last 70 million years the general trend of global temperature has been down, a process which is imperfectly understood:
...we might start looking at some facts.
As an example of my typical, open-hearted, generous nature, I will even begin by agreeing with a statement which is often made by those who flail away at the fact of Global Heating.
The earth has been cooling for the last 70 million years.
Climate History
First, let us get the chronology straight. The Triassic Period extended from about 250 million years ago to 205 mya.
70 mya was in the late Cretaceous, just before the dinosaurs went extinct.
As you can see from this chart at the linked site, there have been many ups and downs in climate over the geologic eras [for example, there was a severe ice age in the Permian Period, just before it got hot in the Triassic] --- but it is true that over the last 70 million years the general trend of global temperature has been down, a process which is imperfectly understood:
numan
What! Me Worry?
- Mar 23, 2013
- 2,125
- 241
- 130
'
However, this has no bearing on what is happening presently.
Anthropogenic global heating is occurring over centuries, and even decades -- not at the majestic, slow pace of hundreds of thousands or millions of years typical of the geologic record.
Evolution has not prepared the plants and animals (including humans) of our biosphere to adapt at such a pace. This means that there will be "discontinuities" -- which means, at the human level, hideous catastrophes and destruction.
.
However, this has no bearing on what is happening presently.
Anthropogenic global heating is occurring over centuries, and even decades -- not at the majestic, slow pace of hundreds of thousands or millions of years typical of the geologic record.
Evolution has not prepared the plants and animals (including humans) of our biosphere to adapt at such a pace. This means that there will be "discontinuities" -- which means, at the human level, hideous catastrophes and destruction.
.
numan
What! Me Worry?
- Mar 23, 2013
- 2,125
- 241
- 130
'
What apparently cannot penetrate the skulls of the scientifically illiterate is that carbon dioxide and methane are greenhouse gases. If you pour them into the atmosphere, they MUST raise temperatures --- unless there are countervailing forces present. This is as certain as that a stone will fall when you drop it.
What countervailing forces are present? I have yet to see a convincing case that they exist. However, it is certain that there are processes which exacerbate global heating --- for example, loss of reflectivity in the polar regions, and release of CO2 and methane from the melting tundra.
All denialism is otiose unless someone can make a case for some strong countervailing force which opposes the inevitable heating which basic physics dictates must arise from human-generated greenhouse gases.
.
What apparently cannot penetrate the skulls of the scientifically illiterate is that carbon dioxide and methane are greenhouse gases. If you pour them into the atmosphere, they MUST raise temperatures --- unless there are countervailing forces present. This is as certain as that a stone will fall when you drop it.
What countervailing forces are present? I have yet to see a convincing case that they exist. However, it is certain that there are processes which exacerbate global heating --- for example, loss of reflectivity in the polar regions, and release of CO2 and methane from the melting tundra.
All denialism is otiose unless someone can make a case for some strong countervailing force which opposes the inevitable heating which basic physics dictates must arise from human-generated greenhouse gases.
.
RollingThunder
Gold Member
- Mar 22, 2010
- 4,818
- 525
- 155
The bogus "Oregon Petition" has been debunked dozens of times. The fact that you still fall for it says a lot about your obvious gullibility and lack of intelligence.
depotoo
Diamond Member
- Sep 9, 2012
- 40,720
- 13,434
- 2,280
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf
On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in EarthÂ’s Radiant Energy Balance
Roy W. Spencer* and William D. Braswell
ESSC-UAH, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Cramer Hall, Huntsville, AL 35899, USA
About « Roy Spencer, PhD
he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASAÂ’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASAÂ’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. SpencerÂ’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASAÂ’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming
Similar threads
- Poll
New Topics
-
Russia Remade Its Economy for War, but It’s Come at a Huge Cost - The New York Times- Started by peacefan
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
