PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #41
My focus has been on the way in which you distort facts by the methods of omission and selectively grouping facts to present an agenda. These are common tools used by conspiracy theorist and revisionist. It is not always the facts that count and conclude accuracy. It is the way they are presented and interpreted to present conclusions as to their meanings. You like to state a fact and make an analysis of the fact followed by a conclusion. When challenged you demand your opponent show where your facts are wrong. It doesn't matter how many folks refute your conclusions, you still demand to show how your facts are wrong. When it is shown that you have distorted and misinterpreted facts, you demand to be called awesome and deflect away from dumb analysis, misinterpretations and conclusions.I used it as a example of the difference between the scientific vs. political debates that are the theme of your OP. It was used in Post #30 and you have been responding to it by including it in your responses ever since.Nonsense, Chicken Little.
"There is effectively an oil spill every day at Coal Oil Point (COP), the natural seeps off Santa Barbara where 20 to 25 tons of oil have leaked from the seafloor each day for the last several hundred thousand years."
Natural Oil Spills Surprising Amount Seeps into the Sea
The "Dump the oil in the stream" political defense was used as an example to show how stupidity could be used as an excuse to the ridiculous idea that dumping your old oil in a stream after an oil change could be somehow OK and acceptable. Your dopey response indicates you believe it is OK to dump your old dirty oil into the stream. Because of natural oil pollution in the Pacific Ocean it is OK to dump oil into the trout stream in Pennsylvania.
Except that nobody said "Dump the oil in the stream"
You really have nothing, do you.
Didn't you forget to address me as 'relentlessly awesome'???
Let's remind that you have yet to deny a single fact posted in the thread.
And...there'll be more.
The point is that you are trying to present a case for the environmental issue being politically motivated and not based on science when in fact it is a scientific issue that has been politicized by those who profit from abusing the environment. The folks who profit from abusing the environment want the issue to be viewed as political and the folks who want to protect the environment want it to be viewed as a science issue. Viewed as a science issue, the protectors win because the science is easy to explain and understand in layman's terms. Viewed as a political issue and the abusers have opportunity to confuse, complicate and use endless methods to deflect, obfuscate, stall, etc.
"... the way in which you distort facts..."
So.....why, then, have you been unable to find such a situation?
Once again I'm faced with the quandary....are you more a moron, or more a liar?
Help me with that, will you?