SilentSnow 1 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 I don't agree or disagree with anyone specifically. I certainly don't agree or disagree with Physicist and Mathematician, John Droz Jr. However, it's ridiculous that you so easily dismiss someone who has been working on environmental issue for 30 years, because he didn't take enough climate related classes when he was 18-21 years old. Data is the issue.You would have us believe that the blogs that you link are absolute fact and that anyone who disagrees is an idiot. That only serves to make you look retarded.Furthermore, it's funny that you don't question the research of a person that believes that Mormonism was based on anything but snake oil. Especially since if I had posted that you would say:MORMON!?the most dishonest organizations on the planet!! zero credibility!!! real scientists!!!!STUPID!I dismissed Droz so easily because he made an atrocious argument. Maybe he defends himself better elsewhere, but that particular post was just stupid and disingenuous. If a climatologist made an argument that dumb I would dismiss it also. I've never said the things I've linked to are absolute fact. They do however tend to be vastly more well-informed and logical than the posts I am responding to. Disagreeing does not make you an idiot. Disagreeing without making even the tiniest effort to understand contrary opinions is what makes you an idiot. To repeat myself, it's not about authority, but argument quality. I'm sure I would find some of Bickmore's religious beliefs to be pretty dumb. But his views on climate change are well supported. If I were doing what you accuse me of I would have said "Roy Spencer is a cretin that believes in intelligent design and is bought off by the Heartland institute, so I don't have to respond further". But I didn't. Instead I posted multiple links that scientifically opposed/refuted his argument. Link to post Share on other sites
SilentSnow 1 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 See, but that only matters if you have some evidence that the article misrepresents the report. Just saying "he's a bad guy, we don't like him" isn't really a real argument, even in first grade.That response was to your clear mistake about why I was mentioning the Heartland Institute. In the links there are scientific explanations of why Roy Spencer is wrong. It is relevant though that most climate scientists think that Spencer has extremely little credibility since they are the ones most qualified to judge.Also, the article does blatantly misrepresent the report now that you mention it. From Spencer's abstract-"While the satellite-based metrics for the period 2000–2010 depart substantially in the direction oflower climate sensitivity from those similarly computed from coupled climate models, wefind that, with traditional methods, it is not possible to accurately quantify this discrepancyin terms of the feedbacks which determine climate sensitivity. It is concluded thatatmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, dueprimarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback insatellite radiative budget observations."Translation- I have some preliminary observations over a short time period that might change one part of the climate model. I do not know how big the discrepancy is and have not incorporated this data into any sort of model of my own. "New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism.The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate."Translation- We are complete liars and are insanely exaggerating the impact of this new study. We fail to mention that Spencer works for us, his results are preliminary, most scientists disagree with him and that the chance of his study significantly affecting the climate change debate is close to zero. Oh yeah- we're pathetic at writing also. Who the hell is stupid enough to use the word alarmist/sm 15 times in an article that is supposed to sound scientific? Link to post Share on other sites
Skeleton Jelly 2 Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 Disagreeing without making even the tiniest effort to understand contrary opinions is what makes you an idiot.Hmm. Link to post Share on other sites
ShakeZuma 585 Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 Hmm.whoa, hold on there, I know what you're thinking, but you're way off. if you already KNOW that you are and have always been right about everything ever, then you don't have to consider contrary opinions. completely different! Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Glenn Beck makes it VERY CLEAR that he certainly, in no way cares that the new Spiderman is half black:http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201108030013I'm glad he made his stance clear. What a gentleman.http://www.theonion.com/video/victim-in-fatal-car-accident-tragically-not-glenn,14380/ Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Glenn Beck makes it VERY CLEAR that he certainly, in no way cares that the new Spiderman is half black:http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201108030013I'm glad he made his stance clear. What a gentleman.OK, first, you made me listen to Glen Beck. So now I'm cranky.As to the point he was trying to make, I sort of feel the same way. I don't care what race or whatever he is, it wouldn't make any difference. But when you change it just to be politically correct, that's sort of annoying. What's the difference? It's whether it feels forced or not. If there was some reason why the change was necessary, fine. If it was done as a blatant attempt to be post-racial politically correct whatever, you've lost my interest.But maybe that's not what Beck was trying to say; he wasn't that clear about why he was talking about it. And no, if I had a radio show, I can't imagine ever bringing it up as a topic of conversation. It's just a lose-lose conversation from the start. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Wasn't the black Spiderman bad?I stopped watching after the 2nd one Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 A challenge to Rachel Madow to debate the Depression and address the facts about Hoover. Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,312 Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 London rioters: 'Showing the rich we do what we want' Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,312 Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 South Koreans Take Pills For Increased Stamina Made In China That Contain Dead Baby Flesh Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 South Koreans Take Pills For Increased Stamina Made In China That Contain Dead Baby FleshWhat's the difference between a boxful of dead babies and a Porsche?I don't have a Porsche in my garage stamina pills. Link to post Share on other sites
akoff 0 Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 London rioters: 'Showing the rich we do what we want' Brilliant – lets burn down the city to show the rich we can do whatever we want….damn there is a big upside in that. Well thought out plan I can see why they are poor. Link to post Share on other sites
SilentSnow 1 Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 In other hilarious news, a deluded libertarian is actually taking Ayn Rand seriously. I would be overjoyed if they tried this, since they might then discover that nearly everything libertarians believe about economies is false. Of course it probably won't happen, since most libertarians are smart enough to realize that starting over on an uninhabited island would be absolutely disastrous to their wealth prospects. Better to prop Galt Gulch up as the fantasy it is than to ever try it and do irreparable harm to the greed movement. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/silico...-140840896.html Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 In other hilarious news, a deluded libertarian is actually taking Ayn Rand seriously. I would be overjoyed if they tried this, since they might then discover that nearly everything libertarians believe about economies is false. Of course it probably won't happen, since most libertarians are smart enough to realize that starting over on an uninhabited island would be absolutely disastrous to their wealth prospects. Better to prop Galt Gulch up as the fantasy it is than to ever try it and do irreparable harm to the greed movement. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/silico...-140840896.html Obvious troll is obvious. Link to post Share on other sites
Pot Odds RAC 23 Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Speaking of Libertarians...http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/08/16/jill....html?hpt=hp_t2 It's amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness.People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we're compassionate we'll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint. Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Speaking of Libertarians...http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/08/16/jill....html?hpt=hp_t2 He kinda ripped the "I don't know" thing from one of Bill Maher's stand-up routines. Penn Jillette is pretty consistent with his libertarianism though which I respect. Their act at the Rio is pretty decent too. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Speaking of Libertarians...http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/08/16/jill....html?hpt=hp_t2 I was going to post this article, mainly because of this line:Democracy without respect for individual rights sucks. It's just ganging up against the weird kid, and I'm always the weird kid.If there's one thought that sums up my political beliefs, that would be it. That is just the perfect statement of what I think was the point of this country. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 I was going to post this article, mainly because of this line:If there's one thought that sums up my political beliefs, that would be it. That is just the perfect statement of what I think was the point of this country.But how do you feel about the tyranny of the minority?Is one thing to say, 'lets consider the minority', its another to say no law can ever favor the majority. Link to post Share on other sites
SilentSnow 1 Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Speaking of Libertarians...http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/08/16/jill....html?hpt=hp_t2 This argument is just dumb. It's an argument for anarchy in general since you could use the same argument structure for literally any government function. He doesn't have a clear understanding of morality at all. The point of morality is not to gratify your ego and maximize your individual chances to "do the right thing". By his logic, why don't we eliminate all crime laws so vigilantes can take credit for saving the damsel in distress? The point of morality is to do the right thing, period- even if you don't individually get to take credit for it. So the relevant question is when is government force justified? The general answer is to minimize force and coercion. Also, it must be demonstrated that this minimization is more efficiently done by the government than private society. I'm sure you'll disagree, but human history has shown us that private individuals generally do a lousy job of reducing poverty. Nearly every wealthy country on earth has a government that has undertaken wide-scale poverty reduction measures. Not only has poverty been greatly reduced, but it seems likely that the overall level of wealth has also been helped. This makes sense if you think of people as human capital(something libertarians pretend to do, but don't). If you don't invest in someone, in an unequal society much of their potential that could have been used to help society is wasted. As for minimizing coercion, many people consider inequality of opportunity a major form of coercion. The whole idea of a free society is a mockery if people are born with wildly unequal opportunities to succeed. Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 payback?http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/18/news/compa...x.htm?hpt=hp_t1These investigations happened well before the downgrade but maybe S&P is giving the US a little payback. Or vice versa. Who knows. Still interesting. Link to post Share on other sites
El Guapo 8 Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 payback?S&P downgrade was payback for this. Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,312 Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 payback?http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/18/news/compa...x.htm?hpt=hp_t1These investigations happened well before the downgrade but maybe S&P is giving the US a little payback. Or vice versa. Who knows. Still interesting.I've been a bit surprised that the rating agencies haven't been at least sued civilly considering how Americans love suing people almost as much as guns and how badly they did their job in rating crap securities as investment grade. Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 S&P downgrade was payback for this.Yeah, that's what I think too but the timing of this is going to make it look the opposite.Bob,my guess is the ratings agencies are insulated from lawsuits somehow. But, that's just a shot in the dark. Link to post Share on other sites
Pot Odds RAC 23 Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Yeah, that's what I think too but the timing of this is going to make it look the opposite.Bob,my guess is the ratings agencies are insulated from lawsuits somehow. But, that's just a shot in the dark.Pretty sure they already tried to haul them in front of Congress at some point and their reply was: "Yes. We're Biased. We're allowed to be biased. We're Private and Unregulated. Have a nice day." Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Pretty sure they already tried to haul them in front of Congress at some point and their reply was: "Yes. We're Biased. We're allowed to be biased. We're Private and Unregulated. Have a nice day."sounds about right. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now