|oogaBooga - 2009-12-05 |
My ex-roommate (the Michael Savage fan) has been quoting this since he heard about it. I'm going to send him this now. He will probably ignore it, but what the hell.
|Udderdude - 2009-12-05 |
I love this man.
|Burnov - 2009-12-05 |
At this point he's simply playing lobbyist.
He's attempting to politically frame the words used in a less damaging context.
In other words, he's preaching to the warmist choir.
This guy's a shill, and his audience are unabashed solipsists.
Holy shit! A talking sphincter.
No really, Burnov.
I would just love to discuss the Earth's climate and man's role in it on a site that features video clips from Youtube that we laugh at.
Wait, I got a better idea! Why don't you take your flame-bait over to Fark and go knock yourself the fuck out?
I would be delighted to hear any arguments or reasons as to why Potholer, or prevailing theories on climate change, are factually wrong, but ad hominem attacks on character and motive have no place in a scientific debate, and can fuck right off.
When I read 'warmist' I though, "oh Jesus that's a real word they're using, isn't it?" I was not happy with what I found.
|Camonk - 2009-12-05 |
"That's the same one, fat-mouth!" Potholer is definitely my favorite non-crazy vlogger.
PS: Febrile nitwits!
|memedumpster - 2009-12-05 |
It's like when you ask the Internet a question and one website has an answer that's inadequate and sixty other websites just rip off and repeat the same answer. That's conservative media.
|kingarthur - 2009-12-05 |
I'm willing to chemically castrate Limbaugh and his ilk. Who's with me?
Only pussy liberal bleeding heart panderers use chemicals, I say we use a shotgun.
Seriously. For a guy with a tough-ass name like King Arthur you're a criminal-coddling pussy.
|pastorofmuppets - 2009-12-06 |
This climategate thing has been very frustrating. Normally this sort of shit is confined to Watts' blog (Fox News radio weatherman masquerading as climate scientist) but I saw this thing all over the place.
|pastorofmuppets - 2009-12-06 |
Also: this is how I feel about politics in general. Science is a great litmus test. You can immediately tell who's full of shit by who misrepresents it.
See here: http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm
The relevant quote is "It's a kind of scientific integrity,
a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of
utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards."
These men are not willing to do that. The people they attack are. You don't find a much clearer separation of good and evil outside of, say, J. R. R. Tolkein :)
Rush does the opposite, he actually says he *knows* the science is wrong because of who likes it. That's backward. Scientific work lives and dies according to how well it corresponds to observed reality, not anything else. It's in the scientific arena, one based on what is essentially an institutionalized bullshit detector, that these guys fail the loudest.
And I'm sorry but they're always conservative.
Yeah I guess I focus a lot more on evolution and climate change than on other issues.
You're right, on the left you have crap like homeopathy and people not getting their kids immunized.
The difference though is that you can't turn on every talk radio show in the country and hear the same story about homeopathy. They were needlessly scaring people about the H1N1 vaccine for a while but once the shortage happened it was better for partisan-cheerleading purposes to talk up how awesome they are and how Obama is keeping them all to himself.
* "Although, they were needlessly scaring"
Anyway yeah people acting like dumb animals is universal. It just seems like there's more of a contempt for science in general on the right, doesn't it? There was the whole "junk science / sound science" thing from a few years ago, for one thing.
|Burnov - 2009-12-06 |
The very existence of a divergence betrays a potential serious flaw in the process by which temperatures are reconstructed from tree-ring density. If it's bogus beyond a set threshold, then any honest man of science would instinctively question its integrity prior to that boundary. And only the lowliest would apply a hack in order to produce a desired result.
Why pontificate in an age of instantaneous information?
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/10/23/the-div ergence-problem-and-the-failure-of-tree-rings-for-reconstructing-p ast-climate/
| Register or login To Post a Comment|