Global Warmists -- Read ( Climategate )

[Tristam]

I guess if you convince the crazies that the gov't is out to get you, it's possible to create a denialist mentality out of anything.

You want to argue that cap and trade won't work, fine, but don't conflate your paralyzing fear of government with science.

edit: Newton was an outcast? He was a voluntary recluse, for a number of likely reasons. But Newton was a domineering figure in his day and could (and did) use his influence, and he was also wrong about lots of shit. It's the Galileo gambit you're referring to, and it only works if you're correct.

[Rothbardian]

I guess if you convince the crazies that the gov't is out to get you, it's possible to create a denialist mentality out of anything.

You want to argue that cap and trade won't work, fine, but don't conflate your paralyzing fear of government with science.

I guess you didn't read what I wrote critically. The point is even if your hypothesis is correct (Which it isn't.), the State cannot solve it. Therefore, unless you prescribe to mass eugenics and a massive police state and a return to the 1700s lifestyle everything is moot. Look at what is actually going on. Read the Copenhagen accords! They aren't doing this for the reasons you think they are. It's a power and money grab, pure and simple. It also defies economic law. Your solution is essentially to become a slave. Forgive me, but Liberty or Death is my motto.

I guess LIBERTY is a crazy idea.....It's only really ever been tried twice and the two times it produced the wealthiest nations this planet has ever seen. CRAZY.

[Tristam]

"This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles, and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s."

http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/15...-89-9-1325.pdf

Just because a journalism BA puts it on a magazine to scare people doesn't mean it's science.

The media: Getting science wrong since, well, forever.

[Cort]

I guess if you convince the crazies that the gov't is out to get you, it's possible to create a denialist mentality out of anything.

You want to argue that cap and trade won't work, fine, but don't conflate your paralyzing fear of government with science.

[Correction]

Rothbardian has taken a page from the Vajira SCHOOL of emphasis.

[Rothbardian]

Rothbardian has taken a page from the Vajira SCHOOL of emphasis.

[Cadsuane]

Since when did consensus and popularism amount to science? This is news to me...for me science is about the Scientific Method. Newton was an outcast in his day, doesn't mean he was wrong.

Secondly, if you take that as temperatures decreasing from 1940 to 1970 and from 2001 to 2009, where is the evidence for Global Warming? The fact is our knowledge of the climate and how it ultimately works is extremely limited. Maybe in 20 years when the Earth hasn't warmed and people aren't dying in droves maybe you'll wake up....maybe, but by then it'll be too late. Liberty lost, is rarely ever gained back.

Newton was wrong, about alot of things, and far from being an outcast he was the head of the Royal fucking Society not to mention the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics of Cambridge.

So when you glibly talk about scientists being fallible and the scientific method being imperfect, in view of the gigantic revisions of theory that have taken place in naturalistic science over the centuries, no shit Sherlock. It's a presupposition built into the scientific method that scientists are fallible. Then you talk about civil debate being necessary to get to the bottom of these things, when the theories you ineffectually lambast are under more duress from the actual scientific community than could ever be mustered by the unwashed, ignorant, ideological cesspool you represent.

Anyway, real talk: Fuck you, fuck this thread, and fuck this trend of politicizing every goddamn issue into right/left wing camps until whatever question that was being asked has been too mutilated to ever be properly answered.

Seriously, what is it with this American conservative delusion that the best way to settle scientific questions is with civil debate? The public, the vast majority of which are too ignorant and poorly educated to be entitled to almost any sort of opinion, are not qualified to question rudimentary science when they can scarcely even learn it. The opinions of politicians, lawyers and other professional liars with an agenda are also largely irrelevant and yet there they are, agitating plebs with conspiracy theories revealing the evil of liberal academics.

Honestly, piss off. Anyone who believes that humans aren't apes and that they didn't evolve from more primitive basal forms or that climate change won't be a serious problem in the 21st century have been seriously misled by their piss poor education, their stupidity, and the bullshit propaganda they're inundated with.

[Rothbardian]

Newton was wrong, about alot of things, and far from being an outcast he was the head of the Royal fucking Society not to mention the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics of Cambridge.

So when you glibly talk about scientists being fallible and the scientific method being imperfect, in view of the gigantic revisions of theory that have taken place in naturalistic science over the centuries, no shit Sherlock. It's a presupposition built into the scientific method that scientists are fallible. Then you talk about civil debate being necessary to get to the bottom of these things, when the theories you ineffectually lambast are under more duress from the actual scientific community than could ever be mustered by the unwashed, ignorant, ideological cesspool you represent.

Anyway, real talk: Fuck you, fuck this thread, and fuck this trend of politicizing every goddamn issue into right/left wing camps until whatever question that was being asked has been too mutilated to ever be properly answered.

Seriously, what is it with this American conservative delusion that the best way to settle scientific questions is with civil debate? The public, the vast majority of which are too ignorant and poorly educated to be entitled to almost any sort of opinion, are not qualified to question rudimentary science when they can scarcely even learn it. The opinions of politicians, lawyers and other professional liars with an agenda are also largely irrelevant and yet there they are, agitating plebs with conspiracy theories revealing the evil of liberal academics.

Honestly, piss off. Anyone who believes that humans aren't apes and that they didn't evolve from more primitive basal forms or that climate change won't be a serious problem in the 21st century have been seriously misled by their piss poor education, their stupidity, and the bullshit propaganda they're inundated with.

Seems to me you're stuck in the false left/right paradigm. I'm neither left or right. I'm a LIBERTARIAN. Secondly, it becomes a "civil" issue when the State starts getting involved. The scientists have a direct conflict of interest because they are funded....by guess who the STATE!

It doesn't take a rocket-science to know the Scientists are going to fudge the data and manipulate the data in order to get more money and funding, and the State is pushing them at the same time because power corrupts, and they want more power and more money. It's blindingly obvious. Would you trust an accountant who was working for and getting paid by the company to do a trustworthy and honest audit of the business to present to an outside source? Of course not! This is what we call ENRON.

All the top global warming scientists and profiteers refuse to debate the issue with those who refute their assertions, and those who refute it are dismissed without the AGW proponents even looking into the data. Between the report that 95% of our testing sites do not meet standards set forth, this, and the huge fuck up of missing a chunk of ice the size of California one would think people may actually question....and educate themselves. Are you living in some hermetically sealed bubble? Are you some rabid environmentalist who doesn't care about the science whatsoever and are ideologically tied to "humans are virus, humans are destructive, we must return to agriarian society to live as one with nature...".

Besides, like I said even if it was true, the State can not solve it anyways! It is not those of us who are "skeptics" who politicized this, it is the Scientists and the State! I wouldn't give a rats ass honestly, if it was say, you know like the String Theory which has no relevancy on any agenda by the State. They aren't violating my INALIEABLE liberty. There is a tide of LIBERTARIANISM and ANTI-STATISM that is rising, growing, and is here to bring back liberty (YAL chapters growing rapidly in every University....SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS). So, continue to duck your head in the sand and think this is some left-right bullshit, when the LEFT and the RIGHT are the SAME! You are both Totalitarians. Piss off tyrant.

PS: Oh yea, where is the "left" anti-war people at now? Oh yea....Code Pink is going along with the expansion of Afghanistan into Pakistan and Iraq. WE ARE THE ONLY PRINCIPLED ANTI-WAR PEOPLE. We understand that War is the health of the State and destroys Liberty. Read General Smedly Butler - War is a Racket. Hypocrits all of you.

[Correction]

So you won't trust the scientific method but you'll trust some conspiracy about Big Science?

Guartz did you have some love-child with Vajira or something?

[Rothbardian]

So you won't trust the scientific method but you'll trust some conspiracy about Big Science?

Guartz did you have some love-child with Vajira or something?

Woah, who said I don't trust the scientific method? The scientific method defines science and Global Warming does not live up to the scientific method whatsoever, nor does the evidence (correctly gathered data) point to Global Warming.

You can have your scientific pissing matches all you want, keep it out of the State agenda and out of trying to interfere in any aspects of my freedom and liberty. We wouldn't have a problem then.

[Abandon]

This thread is retarded, you're all faggots.

[Rhinox]

Seems to me you're stuck in the false left/right paradigm. I'm neither left or right. I'm a LIBERTARIAN. Secondly, it becomes a "civil" issue when the State starts getting involved. The scientists have a direct conflict of interest because they are funded....by guess who the STATE!

It doesn't take a rocket-science to know the Scientists are going to fudge the data and manipulate the data in order to get more money and funding, and the State is pushing them at the same time because power corrupts, and they want more power and more money. It's blindingly obvious. Would you trust an accountant who was working for and getting paid by the company to do a trustworthy and honest audit of the business to present to an outside source? Of course not! This is what we call ENRON.

All the top global warming scientists and profiteers refuse to debate the issue with those who refute their assertions, and those who refute it are dismissed without the AGW proponents even looking into the data. Between the report that 95% of our testing sites do not meet standards set forth, this, and the huge fuck up of missing a chunk of ice the size of California one would think people may actually question....and educate themselves. Are you living in some hermetically sealed bubble? Are you some rabid environmentalist who doesn't care about the science whatsoever and are ideologically tied to "humans are virus, humans are destructive, we must return to agriarian society to live as one with nature...".

Besides, like I said even if it was true, the State can not solve it anyways! It is not those of us who are "skeptics" who politicized this, it is the Scientists and the State! I wouldn't give a rats ass honestly, if it was say, you know like the String Theory which has no relevancy on any agenda by the State. They aren't violating my INALIEABLE liberty. There is a tide of LIBERTARIANISM and ANTI-STATISM that is rising, growing, and is here to bring back liberty (YAL chapters growing rapidly in every University....SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS). So, continue to duck your head in the sand and think this is some left-right bullshit, when the LEFT and the RIGHT are the SAME! You are both Totalitarians. Piss off tyrant.

PS: Oh yea, where is the "left" anti-war people at now? Oh yea....Code Pink is going along with the expansion of Afghanistan into Pakistan and Iraq. WE ARE THE ONLY PRINCIPLED ANTI-WAR PEOPLE. We understand that War is the health of the State and destroys Liberty. Read General Smedly Butler - War is a Racket. Hypocrits all of you.

Codepinkalert.org

we're still there and we're still antiwar. they just don't get the media attention anymore since the corporate media only likes to give the spotlight to the opposition.

[Cadsuane]

Congratulations on not being a self-identified conservative, but in case you haven't realized, characterizing your hurrah word slinging, fallacy ridden opinion as typical right wing bullshit must not be that far off the mark if your only support in this thread is from the two most insane wingnut trolling personas on the board who very closely mirror you, among other reasons.

Anyway, good luck with that.

[Rothbardian]

Codepinkalert.org

we're still there and we're still antiwar. they just don't get the media attention anymore since the corporate media only likes to give the spotlight to the opposition.

http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/20...ghan-war-.html

Are you going to call this out? It seems quite dubious the moment Obama gets in office they start to "re-think" their position and change it, and adapt the talking points of the Neo-Cons. It's partisan bullshit. Code Pink showed their colors. They are unprincipled partisans. Obama himself even said he wasn't going to pull out of Afghanistan and he was going to go after "Al-Qaeda" everywhere they were. Ron Paul was the only one who was championing non-interventionism and the anti-war message. He wanted to pull out immediately not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but in the 750+ bases around the world! Face it, libertarians are the only principled anti-war people. Now, if you are with us, then awesome, but why would you associate yourself with a group of hypocrits?

PS: By the way I just pulled up the first page of google hits about it. So, it would be pointless to talk about the "source" since I hold none of the respondants views. I commended Code Pink in their beginning message, but I knew it was partisan, they also weren't non-interventionists, but every bit of anti-war message is welcomed. Only war is justified in self-defense and must follow the Christian Just War Theory that Thomas Aquinas expanded upon.

[Rothbardian]

Congratulations on not being a self-identified conservative, but in case you haven't realized, characterizing your hurrah word slinging, fallacy ridden opinion as typical right wing bullshit must not be that far off the mark if your only support in this thread is from the two most insane wingnut trolling personas on the board who very closely mirror you, among other reasons.

Anyway, good luck with that.

tl;dr I'm afraid of libertarianism and what it stands for; liberty.

[Rhinox]

http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/20...ghan-war-.html

Are you going to call this out? It seems quite dubious the moment Obama gets in office they start to "re-think" their position and change it, and adapt the talking points of the Neo-Cons. It's partisan bullshit. Code Pink showed their colors. They are unprincipled partisans. Obama himself even said he wasn't going to pull out of Afghanistan and he was going to go after "Al-Qaeda" everywhere they were. Ron Paul was the only one who was championing non-interventionism and the anti-war message. He wanted to pull out immediately not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but in the 750+ bases around the world! Face it, libertarians are the only principled anti-war people. Now, if you are with us, then awesome, but why would you associate yourself with a group of hypocrits?

She came out on a radio Interview the day this story came out and said the author of the article took her out of context. You gotta give me more then a Partisan blog to prove what your saying.

[Rhinox]

tl;dr I'm afraid of libertarianism and what it stands for; liberty.

He could be a Liberal and what it stands for; Liberty.

[Demosthenes11]

She came out on a radio Interview the day this story came out and said the author of the article took her out of context. You gotta give me more then a Partisan blog to prove what your saying.

oh come on, a republican that says they were taken out of context gets attacked by you while you yell retard to anyone that says what you just said

[Cadsuane]

Moar liek: personal freedoms are great, but I did read about Hobbes when I was a kid, and your handwaving about liberty is shallow and puerile.

[Rothbardian]

He could be a Liberal and what it stands for; Liberty.

You mean a Classical Liberal...like John Locke, Frederic Bastiat, Thomas Paine....etc. Yeah, huh-uh, sure. Socialism is not liberty. Mercantilism, is not liberty. Marxism is not liberty. Free-Market is liberty. Understanding that we as individuals are inherently free, and that we own our bodies and therefore own all production that is derived from our labor. You see, a Classical Liberal is a libertarian. At least the term in Europe is still used as it was originally intended for...for the most part.

If you don't know, liberty means both economically and personally. It is all encompassing. And as referenced above, he is definitely against liberty. You can live in your police state, economic slavery, what have you, all you like. I intend to return this country, and millions along with me to its original foundations in Natural Law and Non-Aggression Principle and its foundation in libertarianism. You can join the ride and fight for liberty with me, or you can stand against me...either way we are going to win. So if you don't like the direction that we will achieve, well...there is pretty much every other country that fits your ideology. Cheers.