Protect the environment, or I'll f#%@ing kill you!

[Prolescum]

Making out that because I understand the joke I "accept extreme violence against those who disagree"? That's pretty desperate, dude. This is patently absurd and you know it.

As a source of humor. I don't believe you would advocate actual violence; however, joking about someone blowing up children is still pretty off.

Then this is for you:
[showmore=This contains a joke involving children]Today, I found out that, thanks to a rare bone disease, my 6 year old daughter has only four weeks to live. I decided to read the paper to take my mind off it and discovered a suicide bomber in Baghdad has killed 30 people in a market place.

I cast aside the paper and walk to my daughter's bedroom. I stand in the doorway, watching her sleep, thinking how cruel this world can be. Barely 6 years old and soon to be in heaven. My mind was cast back to the suicide bomber, on his way there and eager to meet the virgins that wait for him. I gently closed the bedroom door, took out my cock and moved towards my innocent child.

Fuck you, Mohammed. This is one virgin you won't be getting your hands on.[/showmore]

You are not the arbiter of taste, you do not get to decide what is and what is not acceptable as humour, and no one else has any obligation to avoid offending or "disturbing" you.

As do we. This is the point being made (albeit not very well), and the one you're attempting to gloss over because it suits you.

My point is that is that their point is poorly made.

The only "point" in your OP was the word "disturbing". Which it isn't, unless you misinterpret it. It is of paramount importance to note that the 10:10 campaign organisers themselves pulled the advert almost immediately, because it didn't get its point across well and it caused offense amongst viewers.
Now it's being redistributed by anti-climate change campaigners, intent upon using it as proof that the green movement is one that promotes the interests of the environment above the interests of humans.

By the way, Arthur, the previous sentence is not a barbed comment aimed at you, rather it is a statement of fact, it's just that it also happens to fit the way you've presented it here.

If I may, precisely how much effort have you put into understanding it? Also, how many fields of science do you understand well enough to make informed decisions on? Are you against magnetic resonance imaging? Stem cell research?

It's a question of mechanism; MRIs could run on pixie dust for all I know, that wouldn't change how safe or effective they were. However, AGW has as its mechanism human activity, and posits the need for control on human activity.

You're right, anthropogenic global warming does have human activity at the heart of its mechanism. Are you suggesting we absolve ourselves of any responsibility for our actions? You're offended at jokes about children yet are quite willing to leave them a legacy of possibly catastrophic proportions based on the flimsy arguments of conspiracy theorists? Your priorities are askew, dear fellow.

If you're going to make some response along the lines of "ah yes, but nobody's shown that humanity's actions are the cause of global warming", then I would like to point out to you that the number of serious scientists who share the consensus that the cause of global warming is anthropogenic, is similar to the number of serious scientists who share the consensus on evolution, and the reason for these scientists accepting both these propositions is because that is what the data consistently shows them.

I would like examples of "human bashing" (whatever that is) and fraud please. Preferably the same sources you base your reticence on.

Human bashing is really more a matter of tone, but fraud is plentiful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra

Solyndra are an industrial manufacturer, they are not the green movement. They are being investigated for business fraud, specifically misuse of a government loan.
Solyndra have not fraudulently used data to promote "the green agenda", neither have they used fraudulent data to promote "the green agenda".

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm

You need to learn the difference between hypocrisy and fraud, and on a personal note, I've considered Al Gore to be an utter wanker ever since he decided to support his wife and the PMRC in their idiotic attempts to get certain forms of music categorised as devil worship back in the '80's.

http://www.newschief.com/article/20111012/NEWS/110125018/1013/opinion?p=1&tc=pg

So you're showing me more examples of business fraud. That's hardly confined to the green industries, and is irrelevant in the argument against the science of climate change. Can you show me some examples of data fraud? You know, instead of worthless tripe.

Tainted?

Yes.

My disagreements are tainted ... why, because I disagree?

No, because your jury is still out with regards to AGW, which puts you at odds with the consensus of scientific expertise in the climate field.

*Edited

 

[nasher168]

As a source of humor. I don't believe you would advocate actual violence;

Oh I don't know. As long as the person involved isn't seriously or irreversibly injured, amateur videos of accidents can be hilarious.

joking about someone blowing up children is still pretty off.

So are dead baby jokes, but they're pretty funny when used at socially-appropriate moments (for example, when a quarter of the room is likely to be genuinely offended by it, but the rest would laugh at the unexpected harshness).

However, AGW has as its mechanism human activity, and posits the need for control on human activity.

...which is exactly what decades of scientific research tells us time and time again. There is no way to rationally claim otherwise.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

You are not the arbiter of taste, you do not get to decide what is and what is not acceptable as humour, and no one else has any obligation to avoid offending or "disturbing" you.

Right - but I'm also free to call something disturbing and explain my reasons for doing so.

The only "point" in your OP was the word "disturbing". Which it isn't, unless you misinterpret it.

Death of the Author; I can interpret something however I want. Just because something has an intended meaning and impact doesn't mean that's the only one that can be interpreted from it. I could also argue that blood and death are inherently disturbing to most humans, but whatever.

It is of paramount importance to note that the 10:10 campaign organisers themselves pulled the advert almost immediately, because it didn't get its point across well and it caused offense amongst viewers.
Now it's being redistributed by anti-climate change campaigners, intent upon using it as proof that the green movement is one that promotes the interests of the environment above the interests of humans.

Unintentionally too truthful, perhaps? The desire to enact your will and crush all who would oppose you is endemic in humanity, after all. Also, I'm all about people getting punished for their mistakes, and certainly you can agree at a minimum this ad was a mistake.

You're right, anthropogenic global warming does have human activity at the heart of its mechanism. Are you suggesting we absolve ourselves of any responsibility for our actions? You're offended at jokes about children yet are quite willing to leave them a legacy of possibly catastrophic proportions based on the flimsy arguments of conspiracy theorists? Your priorities are askew, dear fellow.

Hmmm? My point was that my understanding of the mechanism of AGW is central to my acceptance of its suggestions. If I cannot understand the mechanism, then my ability to judge the suggestions is sharply limited. I've tried to look at the in depth studies, and I simply cannot understand them.

Much of your statements compose an argument from consequence. If I were to accept such an argument in absence of an understanding of the relevant facts, the smartest thing to do would be to march into a church and start praying since hell is the worst consequence imaginable.

If you're going to make some response along the lines of "ah yes, but nobody's shown that humanity's actions are the cause of global warming", then I would like to point out to you that the number of serious scientists who share the consensus that the cause of global warming is anthropogenic, is similar to the number of serious scientists who share the consensus on evolution, and the reason for these scientists accepting both these propositions is because that is what the data consistently shows them.

Argument ad populum; there remains the possibility that they are wrong, numerous though they may be. I am, critically, not saying that they ARE wrong, simply that I have no way of judging that for myself.

Solyndra are an industrial manufacturer, they are not the green movement. They are being investigated for business fraud, specifically misuse of a government loan.
Solyndra have not fraudulently used data to promote "the green agenda", neither have they used fraudulent data to promote "the green agenda".

They and others just pocketed the money that the green agenda opened up; part of which goes into environmental awareness campaigns.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm

You need to learn the difference between hypocrisy and fraud, and on a personal note, I've considered Al Gore to be an utter wanker ever since he decided to support his wife and the PMRC in their idiotic attempts to get certain forms of music categorised as devil worship back in the '80's.

Stretching "fraud" a bit, but still, he's benefiting from fear he creates, and fear he apparently does not believe in himself.

http://www.newschief.com/article/20111012/NEWS/110125018/1013/opinion?p=1&tc=pg

So you're showing me more examples of business fraud. That's hardly confined to the green industries, and is irrelevant in the argument against the science of climate change. Can you show me some examples of data fraud? You know, instead of worthless tripe.

I don't understand the data. However, the fact that the application of that data is so commonly fraud does make its reliability (or, at a minimum, applicability) questionable.

My disagreements are tainted ... why, because I disagree?

No, because your jury is still out with regards to AGW, which puts you at odds with the consensus of scientific expertise in the climate field.

My opinion on one matter is "tainted" because our judgements on a second, related matter are not in agreement? Biased, maybe, but bias is inevitable in any opinion.

 

[Prolescum]

You are not the arbiter of taste, you do not get to decide what is and what is not acceptable as humour, and no one else has any obligation to avoid offending or "disturbing" you.

Right - but I'm also free to call something disturbing and explain my reasons for doing so.

And as noted on the first page, your panic is unwarranted, and your interpretation entirely incorrect. You can pretend that your interpretation of the video is valid, but the evidence shows that you'd be full of shit. Like I've stated, there are valid criticisms of the material, it's just that none of those are your criticisms.

Did you enjoy the joke?

The only "point" in your OP was the word "disturbing". Which it isn't, unless you misinterpret it.

Death of the Author; I can interpret something however I want. Just because something has an intended meaning and impact doesn't mean that's the only one that can be interpreted from it.

But this is a case where your interpretation is demonstrably wrong; you are now in the same league as those whose bias trumps honesty. You know exactly what the video was meant to portray yet insist it says what you want it to say. I wouldn't expect to be taken seriously from hereon out if I were you.

I could also argue that blood and death are inherently disturbing to most humans, but whatever.

Yes, every time a child grazes its knee it is inherently disturbed by the blood, but whatever.

It is of paramount importance to note that the 10:10 campaign organisers themselves pulled the advert almost immediately, because it didn't get its point across well and it caused offense amongst viewers.
Now it's being redistributed by anti-climate change campaigners, intent upon using it as proof that the green movement is one that promotes the interests of the environment above the interests of humans.

Unintentionally too truthful, perhaps?

No, too few people got the joke. You're clutching at straws, and your argument is starting to smell a little ripe.

The desire to enact your will and crush all who would oppose you is endemic in humanity, after all.

No it isn't. I realise we're all a little prone to comical exaggeration, but come on.

Also, I'm all about people getting punished for their mistakes, and certainly you can agree at a minimum this ad was a mistake.

I've already stated that they erred, however, your argument is that it is part of some left-wing green agenda and they've accidentally let the cat out of the bag on their future plans. This is the kind of stuff David Icke buys into. Until now, I'd only considered you a misguided political opponent, now you're showing characteristics of a full-blown conspiracy theorist.

You're right, anthropogenic global warming does have human activity at the heart of its mechanism. Are you suggesting we absolve ourselves of any responsibility for our actions? You're offended at jokes about children yet are quite willing to leave them a legacy of possibly catastrophic proportions based on the flimsy arguments of conspiracy theorists? Your priorities are askew, dear fellow.

Hmmm? My point was that my understanding of the mechanism of AGW is central to my acceptance of its suggestions. If I cannot understand the mechanism, then my ability to judge the suggestions is sharply limited. I've tried to look at the in depth studies, and I simply cannot understand them.

So the reason you won't defer to the experts is because of some supposed fraud you cannot even show? Well this is a reasoned, rational response... Which other fields of science do you require a full understanding of before you accept it?

Much of your statements compose an argument from consequence. If I were to accept such an argument in absence of an understanding of the relevant facts, the smartest thing to do would be to march into a church and start praying since hell is the worst consequence imaginable.

Oh do fuck off (not literally). Your pathetic attempts to defend an untenable position are an embarrassement to your intellect. There is no data pertaining to gods, there are decades-worth for AGW. I'll reiterate, which other fields of science do you require a full understanding of before you accept it?

If you're going to make some response along the lines of "ah yes, but nobody's shown that humanity's actions are the cause of global warming", then I would like to point out to you that the number of serious scientists who share the consensus that the cause of global warming is anthropogenic, is similar to the number of serious scientists who share the consensus on evolution, and the reason for these scientists accepting both these propositions is because that is what the data consistently shows them.

Argument ad populum; there remains the possibility that they are wrong, numerous though they may be. I am, critically, not saying that they ARE wrong, simply that I have no way of judging that for myself.

I've already explained (in the paragraph above, no less), that they accept AGW because of the data: there remains the possibility that evolution is wrong, but you'd be a fucking idiot to ignore the facts on the ground as you are doing with climate change. The data consistently shows that humans are responsible for global warming. The only people making a stink and disputing the data have:

A) Financial interests in the continuation of the status quo
B) Little to no evidence of their claims
C) Belief that they are ushering in the tribulations
D) Dogmatically asserted the opinions of their political compatriots

You fall into at least two of those categories.

Solyndra are an industrial manufacturer, they are not the green movement. They are being investigated for business fraud, specifically misuse of a government loan.
Solyndra have not fraudulently used data to promote "the green agenda", neither have they used fraudulent data to promote "the green agenda".

They and others just pocketed the money that the green agenda opened up; part of which goes into environmental awareness campaigns.

So what? What does that have to do with the data or the effects of climate change? Sweet fuck-all. This is an attempt to divert the conversation away from the only things that should be determining your position, the data and the people who understand it. Which you've yet to show any reason to dismiss.

You need to learn the difference between hypocrisy and fraud, and on a personal note, I've considered Al Gore to be an utter wanker ever since he decided to support his wife and the PMRC in their idiotic attempts to get certain forms of music categorised as devil worship back in the '80's.

Stretching "fraud" a bit, but still, he's benefiting from fear he creates, and fear he apparently does not believe in himself.

That is hypocrisy, not fraud. "Stretching" it, as you say, is just another attempt at casting doubt by proxy; this man is untrustworthy therefore the data is suspect. Bollocks. Big hairy ones. It has fuck-all to do with the data, ergo, is not a valid criticism of AGW.

So you're showing me more examples of business fraud. That's hardly confined to the green industries, and is irrelevant in the argument against the science of climate change. Can you show me some examples of data fraud? You know, instead of worthless tripe.

I don't understand the data.

Then put more effort in or you know, trust the scientific process. Unless you can show fraudulent data, of course.

However, the fact that the application of that data is so commonly fraud does make its reliability (or, at a minimum, applicability) questionable.

You haven't shown any fraud related to the data or its application, so this "point" is also bollocks. All you've shown is a typical business taking government money and misusing it. Although that speaks volumes about the practices of American businesses, it says precisely nothing about AGW.

No, because your jury is still out with regards to AGW, which puts you at odds with the consensus of scientific expertise in the climate field.

My opinion on one matter is "tainted" because our judgements on a second, related matter are not in agreement? Biased, maybe, but bias is inevitable in any opinion.

Yes, however, you've shown, quite literally, nothing to substantiate your biased opinion beyond some rather comical attempts at conflating the data, the character of Al Gore and the practices of a few barely related businesses and you intend on continuing to misrepresent the video in your OP despite knowing the intent and its history.

If these arguments are the best you have, (and I suspect they are), you're only making an utter tit of yourself publically.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Wait, I thought the markets solved every issue perfectly and there should be no regulations. So there's no way green industry can be doing anything wrong, because they are trying to make a profit and profit is the expression of perfect morality... or is it only green industry that can be fraudulent in the delusions of right-wingers?

Which is a dishonest distraction from the reality of AGW, but again... dishonesty is a requirement to hold those views.

 

[Welshidiot]

Guys, I just realised we're being terribly unfair. If Arthur wants to wring his hands over a piece of old and well documented news, then we really shouldn't berate him, as he's such a delicate soul.

What we should do is wrap him in a blanket, make him a nice cup of cocoa, ensure he's tucked up safe with his fluffy Christopher Monckton doll, and say: "There there, Arthur. Don't worry we won't let the nasty green commie people get you."

 

[televator]

Wait, I thought the markets solved every issue perfectly and there should be no regulations. So there's no way green industry can be doing anything wrong, because they are trying to make a profit and profit is the expression of perfect morality... or is it only green industry that can be fraudulent in the delusions of right-wingers?

Which is a dishonest distraction from the reality of AGW, but again... dishonesty is a requirement to hold those views.

If I kill people as a result of dumping chemicals into the water supply, I'm a "terrorist." If a company does the exact same thing and makes money off of it, it's good.

Then, if people get angry at the company and give it a bad image that might reduce profitability -- that's bad. So what has to be done to make things right? Hire up an agency to create some marketing that will indoctrina.....err...will restore your favor with the public. If that doesn't work and people still cry out for legal consequences, you change your name and learn to avoid liability by setting up proxies to do the dirty work for you and give people the run around by shifting the blame. All this will ensure profit, and profit is ALWAYS good.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

If I kill people as a result of dumping chemicals into the water supply, I'm a "terrorist." If a company does the exact same thing and makes money off of it, it's good.

Then, if people get angry at the company and give it a bad image that might reduce profitability -- that's bad. So what has to be done to make things right? Hire up an agency to create some marketing that will indoctrina.....err...will restore your favor with the public. If that doesn't work and people still cry out for legal consequences, you change your name and learn to avoid liability by setting up proxies to do the dirty work for you and give people the run around by shifting the blame. All this will ensure profit, and profit is ALWAYS good.

Right! And since more "green" options will cost existing companies profits, AGW must be a fraud! Anyone who wants to do anything to improve the environment is stupid and evil and fat (damn you Al Gore!), and any claim about them being evil or wanting to strap explosives to children and Gillian Anderson is automatically correct, even when it is false, if it can shut them up and keep the profits rolling in.

 

[televator]

Right! And since more "green" options will cost existing companies profits, AGW must be a fraud! Anyone who wants to do anything to improve the environment is stupid and evil and fat (damn you Al Gore!), and any claim about them being evil or wanting to strap explosives to children and Gillian Anderson is automatically correct, even when it is false, if it can shut them up and keep the profits rolling in.

Plus, commies...always keep an eye out for those commies. These "green" companies tend to attract a lot of lefties which, since the entire left wing spectrum is a homogenous collective of evil commies who want to blow people up, makes these green capitalist industries nothing more than subversive commie organizations. Fear the commies.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

But this is a case where your interpretation is demonstrably wrong;

This is just goofy. How, precisely, would you propose to demonstrate that my interpretation is wrong? I'm self-reporting that I found the ad disturbing, any instrumentation you would care to strap to me would back that up. You could go out and poll the population and I assure you that a measurable fraction of them would find this ad disturbing. You can't exactly pull out a scale and prove me and others wrong with an objective measurement.

I could also argue that blood and death are inherently disturbing to most humans, but whatever.

Yes, every time a child grazes its knee it is inherently disturbed by the blood, but whatever.

Kind of a difference between "skinned knee" and "pulling intestines out of your hair" levels of bloody.

[quote"]]The desire to enact your will and crush all who would oppose you is endemic in humanity, after all.

No it isn't. I realise we're all a little prone to comical exaggeration, but come on.[/quote]

It is somewhat ironic that you are demonstrating this principle in your responses, feeling compelled to insult me and bring up the topic in other threads.

Also, I'm all about people getting punished for their mistakes, and certainly you can agree at a minimum this ad was a mistake.

I've already stated that they erred, however, your argument is that it is part of some left-wing green agenda and they've accidentally let the cat out of the bag on their future plans. This is the kind of stuff David Icke buys into. Until now, I'd only considered you a misguided political opponent, now you're showing characteristics of a full-blown conspiracy theorist.

Eh, less "secret message" and more "Freudian slip".

Hmmm? My point was that my understanding of the mechanism of AGW is central to my acceptance of its suggestions. If I cannot understand the mechanism, then my ability to judge the suggestions is sharply limited. I've tried to look at the in depth studies, and I simply cannot understand them.

So the reason you won't defer to the experts is because of some supposed fraud you cannot even show? Well this is a reasoned, rational response... Which other fields of science do you require a full understanding of before you accept it?

I'll review. I don't understand the facts of AGW, so I compelled to discern its veracity based on my view of the credibility of the people making the claims. Since the results of these claims is so frequently fraud, I am compelled to find these claims not to be credible. My position is, then, the null hypothesis.

I'll reiterate, which other fields of science do you require a full understanding of before you accept it?

I don't expect a full understanding of any field of science; I would posit that in this day and age such a thing would be impossible any way. However, I do require an adequate understanding of any science that would require some cost or change of behavior from me. What is adequate is, of course, a personal judgement.

Argument ad populum; there remains the possibility that they are wrong, numerous though they may be. I am, critically, not saying that they ARE wrong, simply that I have no way of judging that for myself.

I've already explained (in the paragraph above, no less), that they accept AGW because of the data: there remains the possibility that evolution is wrong, but you'd be a fucking idiot to ignore the facts on the ground as you are doing with climate change.

I'll repeat; I do not UNDERSTAND the "facts on the ground". I've expended all the mental effort I care to in coming to that conclusion; my research efforts and professional knowledge are in a wholly different field.

That is hypocrisy, not fraud. "Stretching" it, as you say, is just another attempt at casting doubt by proxy; this man is untrustworthy therefore the data is suspect. Bollocks. Big hairy ones. It has fuck-all to do with the data, ergo, is not a valid criticism of AGW.

That's about the size of it. If the data is so wonderful, why is its greatest champion this jerk? Petty, I know, but that's the only angle I have.

Taken from another direction, even if the data were correct, does it matter if its application is the chicanery of Gore, the fraud of Solyndra, and the boondoggles of "green jobs"? I'm open to being convinced; what is the best current application of AGW data or the beliefs AGW movement generally?

Then put more effort in or you know, trust the scientific process.

No, no, a hundred times no. Trust without understanding is faith. (Ask a Christian, "Lean not on your own understanding" is right in their charter.) If you're asking me to have faith in science of scientists then you have seriously missed a point somewhere.

 

[nasher168]

Petty, I know, but that's the only angle I have.

I couldn't have put it better myself. :|


...and of course what I just said is perhaps even more ironic, but hey...

Since the results of these claims is so frequently fraud, I am compelled to find these claims not to be credible.

How many examples of fraud amongst peer-reviewed climate scientists can you show us? I would hazard to guess "not many" is the answer. And if you even mention the "Climategate" "scandal" I swear I will let out a scream of despair.
You must not confuse the hype and speculation from Greenpeace and Al Gore for science. Much of what they say is straight-up bullshit and is in fact, IMO, damaging to the very noble cause of trying to reduce the impact of AGW.


We can make a fair comparison to certain creationist claims to the idea that climate scientists are fraudulent.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

]Since the results of these claims is so frequently fraud, I am compelled to find these claims not to be credible.

How many examples of fraud amongst peer-reviewed climate scientists can you show us? I would hazard to guess "not many" is the answer. And if you even mention the "Climategate" "scandal" I swear I will let out a scream of despair.
You must not confuse the hype and speculation from Greenpeace and Al Gore for science. Much of what they say is straight-up bullshit and is in fact, IMO, damaging to the very noble cause of trying to reduce the impact of AGW.

Do I really need to repeat that I don't understand the science?

Try thinking about it this way. Let's pretend that quartz doesn't exist for a moment, and consider crystals. There's a lot of fascinating science behind how they form and how their structures work. There's also a ton of fraudulent claims about what they can do, and crystals being sold on every block for any number of fake uses. If all you heard was this pile of fraud, would you accept the basic claims that they were based on? Might you not suspect that all the science of crystals had zero practical application?

Absent an understanding of the actual data, all I have to go on is Greenpeace and Al Gore. That, or idiots going on about the wonders of recycling (which are rather mixed), water conservation (only meaningful in certain locales), and green technology (actually harmful in many cases).

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Do I really need to repeat that I don't understand the science?

Wow... ending the moratorium on commenting on posts from evil lying right-wingers. Yeah, I'm that bored.

Hey, guess what sport? You shouldn't have repeated it once, because you should have kept your admittedly ignorant mouth fucking shut in the first place. If you are so fucking ignorant, then you don't get an opinion... you, or your fellow intentionally ignorant right-wing anti-American buddies. Your entire position seems to be "I'm ignorant, but it costs oil companies their profits, so it must be fraudulent"... and you so completely lack self-awareness that you think the "I'm ignorant" part excuses the moronic position you hold.

 

[Prolescum]

This is just goofy. How, precisely, would you propose to demonstrate that my interpretation is wrong?

By pointing you to the source. The 10:10 campaign has ben explained, as has the video.

I'm self-reporting that I found the ad disturbing, any instrumentation you would care to strap to me would back that up. You could go out and poll the population and I assure you that a measurable fraction of them would find this ad disturbing.

Ahem... *best hoity voice* Argumentum ad populum. See, I can point out fallacies too. Gee whizz, I hope that isn't insulting...

You'll note the target audience (the Brits) on this board understood it perfectly well.
I think you're confused, my darling. The interpretation you gave was that it was, as you point out below, a Freudian slip by the leftist-green agenda, showing the true desires of those filthy socialists; acquiesce or die!

Or to put it another way, Protect the environment, or I'll f#%@ing kill you!

That you also found it disgusting for other reasons is quite by the by. I recommend issues #1 - #90 of The Walking Dead, those'll get rid of that squeamishness. Take two a day for the foreseeable future. Call me if it gets worse, I'll post you some Cerebus.

You can't exactly pull out a scale and prove me and others wrong with an objective measurement.

I've already shown your interpretation to be in error. Your disgust at the gore has already been acknowledged. Sleight of hand use of "disgusting" is rather sneaky by the way. I like to play along, though.

It is somewhat ironic that you are demonstrating this principle in your responses, feeling compelled to insult me and bring up the topic in other threads.

Thread. Singular.
See? Exaggeration. It is somewhat ironic that your persecution complex manifests so easily that you cry umbrage even when confronted by your own bullshit. You may feel my presence is crushing, however, this only really reflects upon your constitution. You're annoyed because your argument is weak, I understand that, there's no shame in it. Well there is, but not very much.

Eh, less "secret message" and more "Freudian slip".

Ah, trotting along the well-worn path of the incredulous; it doesn't matter what the facts are, "NEWTHINKERS BELLYFEEL THIS GOODTHINK!" Disappointing, but not unexpected.

I'll review. I don't understand the facts of AGW, so I compelled to discern its veracity based on my view of the credibility of the people making the claims.

Lol, that sentence is brilliant in a Jamaican accent. If this is so, why are you only listening to Al Gore and not, you know, the scientists who have been saying it for decades? Click the image for great justice.

[centre][/centre]

Since the results of these claims is so frequently fraud, I am compelled to find these claims not to be credible.

Once again, in italics, you haven't shown any fraud either by the scientists or in application of the data.

My position is, then, the null hypothesis.

Except it isn't, is it? When you see a video that you could use to misinform the proles and scream from the top of your lungs that it's all a conspiracy of those crazy European commies, your irrational disdain for the science of climate change is blinding.

I don't expect a full understanding of any field of science; I would posit that in this day and age such a thing would be impossible any way. However, I do require an adequate understanding of any science that would require some cost or change of behavior from me. What is adequate is, of course, a personal judgement.

Yes, I get that you don't consider the consensus of thousands of scientists (having given decades to the study of climate change) adequate. By looking at the face of Al Gore you can just tell it must be nonsense.

There is only one adequate word to describe this position: preposterous.

I'll repeat; I do not UNDERSTAND the "facts on the ground". I've expended all the mental effort I care to in coming to that conclusion; my research efforts and professional knowledge are in a wholly different field.

So you don't/cannot/will not understand it, you will not take the consensus of scientists in the field, and you will not accept the data because it requires some cost and a change in your behaviour. Null hypothesis my arse. More like sticking your head in the sand because, well, it's the next generation's problem...

That's about the size of it. If the data is so wonderful, why is its greatest champion this jerk?

Lol, you're so parochial.

Petty, I know, but that's the only angle I have.

Quite.

This, I think, is the real reason, and I'm glad you've finally admitted it; it took you a while and a whole lot of guff.

You're not even interested in the facts as they stand, as long as your pet hates are on the other side of the argument and it requires effort on your part, you're not interested. It's such a shame the right in your country is so blackwhite.

Taken from another direction, even if the data were correct

Which by all measures it appears to be...

does it matter if its application is the chicanery of Gore, the fraud of Solyndra, and the boondoggles of "green jobs"?

None of those examples are worthy of further discussion as they've already been dismissed for being completely irrelevant.

I'm open to being convinced

Given the statements in your last few posts and the acknowledgement that you have no valid reasons for disputing the evidence, I sincerely doubt that.

Then put more effort in or you know, trust the scientific process.

No, no, a hundred times no. Trust without understanding is faith.

But you said in this very post I don't expect a full understanding of any field of science; I would posit that in this day and age such a thing would be impossible any way.

So you yourself have faith in science, and I agree, it is faith. It is, however, not unfounded.

(Ask a Christian, "Lean not on your own understanding" is right in their charter.) If you're asking me to have faith in science of scientists then you have seriously missed a point somewhere.

I love how you can hold two completely contradictory things in your head at one time; Orwell would be proud. Well, distressed I suppose. He would probably smack you on the knuckles for the construction of that sentence, though.

 

[Dean]

@ImprobableJoe

Do I really need to repeat that I don't understand the science?

[ ... ]
Your entire position seems to be "I'm ignorant, but it costs oil companies their profits, so it must be fraudulent" [ ... ]

I've often wondered why scientific discourse almost inevitably leads to political conflicts. I'm reminded of something Michael Shermer uttered in one of his videos: "Why would scientists have wings?" -- right/left wings? My own observation (you may recall) is that pseudoscientific denial of Anthropogenic Climate Change, Evolutionary Biology, Psychology, or whatever it may be, has become a strong part of US Conservative tribal-identity. This is plain to see here. It easily trumps Arthur's rational core, if he indeed has one, since he obviously has little idea of the utter absurdity of his statements.

 

[televator]

:shock: sweet zombie Jebus!

I had no idea that someone damn near required a degree in a particular field of science to come to accept the consensus of years of scientific study and verification.

Wherever the line between skepticism and denial is, I'm sure Arthur's crossed it...

 

[Prolescum]

Wherever the line between skepticism and denial is, I'm sure Arthur's crossed it...

I think it's somewhere between Al Asasif and Karnak.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I've often wondered why scientific discourse almost inevitably leads to political conflicts. I'm reminded of something Michael Shermer uttered in one of his videos: "Why would scientists have wings?" -- right/left wings? My own observation (you may recall) is that pseudoscientific denial of Anthropogenic Climate Change, Evolutionary Biology, Psychology, or whatever it may be, has become a strong part of US Conservative tribal-identity. This is plain to see here. It easily trumps Arthur's rational core, if he indeed has one, since he obviously has little idea of the utter absurdity of his statements.

I also wonder why we pretend those people have good points on any subject remotely related to politics, when they clearly display an inability to accept science and facts and reasoning when it contradicts their political beliefs. When so many of their beliefs depend on rejecting evidence on a variety of subjects for the same irrational reasons, it isn't a bad idea to seriously doubt their ability to choose positions based on evidence in other areas. In other words, when I say mean things about the abject stupidity of right-wing political viewpoints, it isn't just that I disagree with their positions. I'm also disagreeing with the way they come up with them. If someone rejects mountains of scientific evidence because of their economic views, I'm going to say their economic views are probably just as irrational.

 

[nasher168]

Do I really need to repeat that I don't understand the science?

Okay then. In that case, to what extent do you understand the science? Do you know even the very basics? If not, we'll go from the absolute beginning, but just for a decent starting point, could you just lay out what limited knowledge you do have? Even if it's just "the Earth is getting warmer and humans are the main cause."
Even if you don't believe it yourself. This is purely to reach a starting point on an explanation.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Do I really need to repeat that I don't understand the science?

Okay then. In that case, to what extent do you understand the science? Do you know even the very basics? If not, we'll go from the absolute beginning, but just for a decent starting point, could you just lay out what limited knowledge you do have? Even if it's just "the Earth is getting warmer and humans are the main cause."
Even if you don't believe it yourself. This is purely to reach a starting point on an explanation.

Some of this dates back to when I was in High School chemistry class doing an experiment with chemicals changing colors under certain conditions. I dutiful did the experiment and recorded the color changes. The teacher marked down my work, explaining that some of the colors were wrong and I must have made an error. I protested, but I was told I had to be wrong no matter what my experiment said. Now, I probably was wrong, but I was struck by the arrogant insistence that anything that disagreed with what was established was dismissed out of hand. Later, in University, I found that this sentiment was echoed by a school of epistemology called post-positivism. This school went too far by saying it was impossible to understand anything beyond your current assumptions, but its statements about the inertia of science rang true for me.

What I understand: The Earth has an atmosphere with a varying composition of gasses. The Earth is heated primarily by the sun. Some percentage of the sun's energy is absorbed by the planet, while some is reflected by the atmosphere or surface. The Earth's temperature has varied significantly over the last billion years, and has risen in the last 150 years. AGW claims that carbon dioxide released by human activity changes the absorbed/reflected solar energy ratio, and that this is the primary mechanism behind the increase in measured temperatures.

What I do not understand: Fluid dynamics. The exchange of energy between the air, the land, the ocean, and space. Mechanisms for release and capture of carbon dioxide beyond human activity. Secondary effects of warming on ocean water, methane release, plant activity, and any other related factors. The effects of atmospheric elements other then carbon dioxide. The actual impact warming might have on human or animal activity. How climate patterns might change by region.

Just so you know; I'll listen to you if you want to try to explain any of this, but I do not want to expend the mental effort to read several studies on subjects I do not understand a second time.