Main Menu

“Truth? You can't handle the truth!”

Started by The Legendary Shark, 18 March, 2011, 06:52:29 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

JayzusB.Christ

Quote from: Hawkmonger on 29 January, 2016, 10:08:44 PM
Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 29 January, 2016, 10:04:43 PM
Quote from: Hawkmonger on 29 January, 2016, 09:59:08 PM
I don't tink anyone like's Nigel Lawson, because he's a monumental hypocrite and a nob.

He makes a nice cake and has a top rack, all the same.
I once made the mistake of google imaging Nigel Lawson* instead of Nigela. Boy was I conffused!!!


*For scientific reasons!

Well, science is drokking fantastic... http://forums.2000adonline.com/index.php?topic=33858.msg904752#msg904752
"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest"

The Legendary Shark

Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 29 January, 2016, 10:10:55 PM

Conversely: "He agrees with my contrarian adoption of a fringe viewpoint, so I will accept his assertions over better-qualified REAL SCIENTISTS without actually considering his actual credibility, which is zero."

Jim

The blog you link to was written by Barry Bickmore, who not only believes but acts as a missionary to the idea that the Word of God was copied down off golden plates found by Joseph Smith after a conversation with God under a tree in 1820. Bickmore is also a supporter of AGW and so - surprise, surprise - writes in support of that view. Hey, you're right, you know - this ad hominem approach you love so much is really easy and takes little effort or intellectual ability. I can see why it appeals to you. The blog you link to seems to have missed the fact that Monckton has been ordered to stop claiming to be a member of the House of Lords. Maybe you could email Bickmore with this fact in order to gain yourself some Ad Hominem Club Brownie Points...

Except that, oh wait, "Climate Money" wasn't written by Monckton, was it? It was written by Joanne Nova, a Bachelor of Science first class whom, presumably, you couldn't dig up any personal dirt on in order to automatically poo-poo anything she writes that you don't like. So you lazily attempt to dismiss her by association. How cunning of you.



[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




Jim_Campbell

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 30 January, 2016, 08:22:43 AM
this ad hominem approach you love so much is really easy and takes little effort or intellectual ability.

It's not an ad hom to point out that the Gobal Warming Policy Foundation refuses to disclose its sources of funding, nor to point out that one of its founders is deeply in the pocket of the coal industry, and that these two facts make any pronouncements it may make on the subject of climate change deeply suspect.

I note that you decided to trot out another paper rather than address any of the problems with the first one, and you also fail to engage with my other point about there really only being two courses of practical action over this issue, the consequences of one being wrong is cleaner, more sustainable planet and the other being utter catastrophe.

Jim
Stupidly Busy Letterer: Samples. | Blog
Less-Awesome-Artist: Scribbles.

The Legendary Shark

How do you know what the problems with either paper are if you refuse to even read them? Far more money, far, far more, goes into the pro-AGW side of the debate - much of it out of our taxes - so why is this not a problem? Why does that not make the pronouncements of the alarmists equally "deeply suspect"? How can it be fine one way yet not fine the other? Shouldn't the money go into balanced research?
.
As to the "either-or" argument, where's the sense in that? It's the kind of thing leading to the "you're either with us or against us" mode of thinking so beloved of people like G. W. Bush and company.
.
Science, as we both know, issues only provisional conclusions based on current understanding. There's no "either-or" about it. Yes, continue to study the effects of CO2 and yes, continue to try and cut down (all) emissions because that seems prudent. But don't just ignore everything else because this One Thing will solve all our problems.
.
I'm no expert, neither of us is, and I'm sure I've said before that I like your ideas about phasing out intensive farming and finding ways to improve animal husbandry. These ideas have several commendable aspects, not all of them climate related.
.
But once we start refusing to consider ideas and research purely on unscientific, "he said this, she did that and they paid for whatever," the science can only suffer. If we want to dismiss or refute ideas then that's fine, necessary even - but at least we should do so on the merits of the ideas themselves, not on the merits of their originators or supporters.
.
If some redneck hick comes forward and claims bigfoot exists, that's great, I'm interested: show me the body or the bones or the DNA tested hairs or droppings and I'll believe it. If he's got nothing, or next to nothing, then I'm not going to believe it whether it comes from a redneck hick or a professor with more letters after his name than contained in a tin of alphabet soup.
.
Similarly, ostensibly respectable politicians, businessmen and bankers have a lot invested, both in terms of capital and reputation, on the pro-AGW side. Ditto, but to a lesser extent, on the anti-AGW side. It makes no difference which side the science comes from, so long as it's reasonably solid. And it's that we should be looking at, not the distraction of finger-pointing and who can out-humiliate whom. There isn't an adult on the planet - including you and me - who hasn't said and/or done stupid things in their life. Some of us, like the amusing Monckton, have exceeded the norm. This does not make him wrong about everything - it just means we should approach his ideas with caution, in the same way we should approach all ideas.

[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




JPMaybe

The only point in debating with somebody like you is to illustrate to other people how egregiously, preposterously wrong you are.  So given that absolutely nobody on this forum swallows your obscurantist twaddle wrapped in your incredibly tiresome, "what me guv?" faux-naif act, it's probably utterly pointless. 

You've pinged around like a dozy wasp in a conservatory between so many mutually exclusive and strawmanned positions in this thread I've lost count; from "CO2 doesn't cause warming, look I've got this graph with a scale in the millions of years to prove it!" to "well okay it does cause warming but it'll be good, see!" to "look I can make a naive average to show it ain't no thang if I use the figures derived by the methods I've previously said are untrustworthy" to "AGW proponents say it's just the anthropogenic CO2 that causes warming!" to "we don't know for sure so the rational position is apportioning exactly a 50% probability to each!".

You don't get to refute the laboratory-observed properties of greenhouse gases from the confines of your head. The inference that adding to atmospheric CO2 will cause warming regardless of other factors (i.e. the natural cycles that you constantly irrelevantly bring up, that nobody outside your constructed-version of an agw proponent actually disputes the existence of) is such a solid one that the burden of proof is entirely on denialists to explain why CO2 would act differently in the atmosphere.  And no amount of Gish-galloping on your part will change that.
Quote from: Butch on 17 January, 2015, 04:47:33 PM
Judge Death is a serial killer who got turned into a zombie when he met two witches in the woods one day...Judge Death is his real name.
-Butch on Judge Death's powers of helmet generation

The Legendary Shark

That's odd - what happened to this:

Quote from: JPMaybe on 31 January, 2016, 12:18:31 PM
Could a mod delete that previous post please?  Ta.

?
[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




IndigoPrime


The Legendary Shark

[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




Professor Bear


IndigoPrime

Quote from: Scolaighe Ó'Bear on 01 February, 2016, 01:01:35 PM
CONSPIRACY.
You'll note that if you carefully rearrange the letters in my handle here, 'IndigoPrime', it spells out 'Illuminati forevaarrr'.

The Legendary Shark

Quote from: IndigoPrime on 01 February, 2016, 01:04:38 PM
Quote from: Scolaighe Ó'Bear on 01 February, 2016, 01:01:35 PM
CONSPIRACY.
You'll note that if you carefully rearrange the letters in my handle here, 'IndigoPrime', it spells out 'Illuminati forevaarrr'.

"Drop Gemini I" - Obviously an Illuminati clue about the fake NASA space program...
And - "Big Shale Era - Coo!" Obviously another Illuminati clue about fraccing!
Put these clues together and it must mean that aliens are coming for our shale gas!
*gasp!*

[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




M.I.K.

Somewhere among those anagrams is the HARSH TANGLED KEY.

The Legendary Shark

[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




The Legendary Shark

"This is a pervasive pattern of covering up the role of Saudi Arabia in 9/11 by all of the agencies of the federal government which have access to information that might illuminate Saudi Arabia's role in 9/11."

Yet another made-up quote from a tinfoil-lined nut-job conspiracy site?

Nope. The quote comes from former Democratic Senator Bob Graham and was printed in April 2015 in the msm's New York Post article "How the F.B.I. is Whitewashing the Saudi Connection to 9/11." A year later and 60 minutes Moment of the Week "Who Helped the 9/11 Hijackers When They Were in the US?" is on CBS. Of course, there simply can't be anything in it because that would mean there's been some kind of fifteen year old "conspiracy" or something, which is clearly impossible. So impossible, in fact, that the Saudis have no need whatsoever to threaten reprisals.

The question occurring to me is, why is this information coming to the fore now? Is it going to be used as another pretext for more military expansionism into the Middle East? To close off the United States' borders by one more degree? To remove the House of Saud in favour of another puppet government? To introduce a few more "security laws" to hold over the American people? Expanding control over oil supplies? Sabre rattling for economic and/or political purposes? A lust for sand? All, some or none of the above? Only time will tell.
[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




Hawkmumbler

Oh there was a conspiracy. By fundamentalist terrorists who hate western decadence yet, oxymoronically, also desire it. As far as US connections go i'm highly, highly sceptical to the point of total dismisal.