Irrational Thinking: A Winner!

[Tokenconservative]

Rational Thinkers vs. Anthropogenic Global Warmingists.
Why Rational Thinkers Have (Again) Failed

The issue of so-called Global Warming or its more en vogue nom de guerre, “Climate Change” has risen to utterly dominate any and all discussions of ecology, environment, weather and climate today. Primary to the argument that the planet is undergoing a period of marked, global rise in mean temperature is the “consensus” view that human industrial activity is the cause. Indeed, many scientific publications have for some time now refused to accept any related research that fails to recognize that “warming” is occurring and worse, any such research that fails to attribute this to human activity.

Today, it’s widely accepted in public science, in government and in the populace as a whole that global warming is happening and that humans are causing it to happen, and entire nations are poised to impoverish themselves based upon these “facts.”

Political Correctness: Silencing Dissent.
Anthropogenic Global Warming’s (AGW) closest ancestor is the political correctness movement that swept academia in the 1980s and ‘90s, and that continues today to put a chill on all academic research and reporting, but most especially in the liberal arts. This movement, designed by forces on the political left as a means of coercively driving thinking in a certain direction, has been very effective.

Relying upon a witch-hunt mentality and the positive feedback loop this can create in academic circles, it has been wildly successful--dissent has disappeared to the point where today, adherents are able to point to current works and at the same time both deny that PC is at work and proudly crow over it’s success in chilling dissenting opinion.

As in any witch-hunt, any who speak up quickly find themselves on the outs among true believers and abandoned by those frightened into agreement or at least silence. Any who dare research, teach or speak oppositely, no matter how innocently, quickly find themselves in hot water with their academic employers or educators.

Those who might have spoken out need observe only one classmate receiving failing grades or being snubbed from post-graduate studies, or to see but a single colleague whose contract is not renewed, or whose research is de-funded or denied altogether to get the message. Seeing all the heads on pikes at the gates to the academy, and fearing for their own current or future their careers, dissenting voices whether students or professors retreated to a point over the academic horizon in the ‘90s.

This feedback loop is insidious: the fewer who are kept from teaching, speaking, researching and learning honestly, the more it appears that “no one” is disagreeing. Soon, though it’s never admitted that such a thing even exists, the canon of works and research that receives funding fits the politically correct mold. Older works deemed outside these parameters are tarred with the “ism” brush and identified as “racist,” “sexist,” “homophobic,” “Euro centric,” or “patriarchal.”

Any living and still-working researchers who take exception to having their previously canonize works now dismissed as unacceptable for these reasons, are themselves shunned across academia and quickly find that unless they admit their past sins and convert to the new faith, they have become persona non grata in a world they once ruled.

In this way, true believers in the PC movement are able to silence researchers retroactively, remove their works and diminish those who were not so long ago, giants in their fields. By this devious process, PCers are then able to point to the current canon in confidence, noting how little published work there is that takes a view contrary to that acceptable to PC. And clearly if “no one” in the discipline thinks “that way,” it must be wrong!

Wherever the baleful eye of PC has turned, academicians have withered before it. Very, very few in academia have been able to withstand an attack of this sort. Studies of Christopher Columbus are case in point. No longer can Columbus be referred to as the visionary navigator, great leader of men or even the expert salesman he was.

Today, this man once revered by everyone from schoolchildren to sage academicians, must be viewed through the PC prism and can only be researched for his catalog of “racist and patriarchal crimes” against the native peoples he encountered, while his skills as a navigator and his vision and drive are blasted as “accidental” and “greedy.” To do otherwise invites censure by one’s peers and economic punishment from one’s institution and its financial backers.

Creationism and Intelligent Design: Prove it Didn’t Happen!
Beyond academia, and in fact seemingly utterly counter to it, are the Creationists and the Intelligent Design (ID) movements. While tracing their beginnings to a time before PC, the Creationists really didn’t get their feet under them until the ID movement that arose from the ashes of moderate Creationist defeat in the late 90s-early 2000s joined them. This movement co-opted real science and tweaked it to fit their religious mythologies. The infamous case of the fossil “human” footprints alongside those of a dinosaur had been a staple of the Creationist argument, never mind the logical flaws of the argument that goes: since scientists cannot prove that these footprints are not human then they must be human! ID has taken this sort of “reasoning” to dizzying new heights and argues that since toddler (or younger) sciences are unable to “prove” this or that, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that leaves only one possibility: some “intelligence” must have created it all!

IDers say that since the “missing links” in direct assent from primordial ooze to the man on the street are not present, the complexities of the human eye are too great to ascribe to the mere “chance” of evolution. IDers further demand that evolutionists explain the symbiotic organisms that reside only in the guts of so many animals. How, they demand, did these often microscopic creatures “know” to set up housekeeping in a tiger rather than a cow, or a man rather than a goanna?

Evolutionary science cannot provide grade school-level answers to these questions, and IDers know it. They use that fact to stand before PTAs and Kiwanis club meetings, or in “debates” with evolutionist paper tigers insisting that if science can’t provide a rock-solid explanation, right now, today, then it’s clear that it’s not evolution at work, but rather the “watchmaker!”

The antilogical “reasoning” used to arrive at such conclusions is intellectually stultifying. Rational thinkers tend to either look on in gape-mouthed amazement or to dismiss as utter poppycock such anti-intellectual, religiosity. After all, it’s not science’s job to prove or disprove a Creator. Unfortunately, stunned silence is purposefully identified by IDers as arrogant dismissal, which the IDer can then point to as more evidence that “they don’t know!” or that “they are afraid to face us!”

Now imagine coupling the sort of irrational thinking that informs ID with the witch-hunt mentality of PC. But wait! You don’t have to imagine it. It’s happening. It’s called AGW--Anthropogenic Global Warming. Zealous proponents within this movement, one that bears all the major hallmarks of a religion, have (unlike their opponents) clearly not ignored the lessons of the PC and ID movements.

They use all of the dissent-silencing fear of PC while fully engaging the irrationality and generally ignorance of advanced science used by ID. But they, like these, their ideological forebears, have also turned to that most reliable of all possible allies, an indefatigable partner that they know they can always count on to help: the very people who would argue against AGW.

When the PC and Creationism/ID movements made their most outrageous arguments, who was there to bolster those arguments by agreeing that these arguments were legitimate? Their rational opposition, of course, either with frightened acquiescence (PC) or silent dismay (ID). Today, AGW counts on rational thinkers to either remain silent in abject fear, or to engage in debate only on AGW terms.

AGW has defined the terms, the parameters, the rules and the boundaries of the discussion, and rather than returning the argument to the baseline where the brighter AGWists know they can be defeated, supposed rational thinkers spend all their time debating hockey sticks, or long-term temperature charts or microbe counts in ice cores--anything, it seems to avoid addressing the foundations of AGW which are a straw man and projection.

The AGWist formula is quite simple: The AGWist begins his or her argument and bases everything after that in the straw man assertion that disagreement with AGW is tacitly stating that climate is static. From here AGW argues with the further logical fallacies of guilt by association and the vested interest fallacy that lump all rationalist thinkers on this issue in with political conservatives working to preserve the profits of “Big Oil” and with religious views that hold to the “young earth” belief. So any rational thinker enters the debate identified (and permitting that identification) as a religious nutcase who believes the earth is only 6,000 years old, who is a tool of “Big Oil,” and who believes that climate does not change.

Couple this with the classic Freudian projection used by AGW, wherein one claims that some other demonstrates a personality trait or engages in actions that the claimant him or herself actually demonstrates (in it’s more radical presentations, this is a typical to schizoid behaviors) and you’ve got a formidable foe--if you ignore the fact that your foe’s arguments are based in these untenable foundations.

No truly rational thinker believes climate does not change. And while certainly some of those who “deny” global warming do so for religious reasons, most rational thinkers find this assertion astounding in its baldly dishonest misrepresentation of their views. The historical and geologic and other records are quite clear: climate changes. Often radically, and sometimes quite quickly. At the same time AGWist are claiming that all “deniers” believe in a static climate, they also claim that absent human industrial activity, climate would not be changing today--that climate is in fact static, that if not for man, climate would not be changing.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too. But rational thinkers have decided to give AGWists a pass on that old saw. Rational thinkers following the same pattern they have with the PC and ID movements is something AGW depend on. It’s as if it were a soccer (football) game in which your team’s coach says that it’s impolite to single out the fellow with the ball. Instead you can only block those on the field who hasn’t got the ball. Can there be any doubt as to the outcome of such a game?

As occurred in both the PC and ID movements, this habitual acquiescence to the opponents’ will, playing by his rules and observing his boundaries, has permitted the AGW movement to grow ever more shrill, hysterical and demanding, to the point where it is now threatening the economic health of entire nations.

While rational thinkers engage AGWists in long, heated debates over whether particulate matter in an ice core suggests 1 or 3+/- C warmer conditions 120,000 years ago, and allow AGWists to assert that behaviors certain animals have always engaged in are now evidence of anthropogenic global warming, or arguing what a two centimeter rise in sea level as opposed to a four centimeter rise will do to civilization, AGWists are having a good laugh.

Rational thinkers should be, well, rational. Why have they so easily and entirely given up the high ground time and time again? Why have they permitted their irrational, dangerous opponents to outflank them with this same maneuver again and again? Even a flatwork can be taught to avoid a heated blade. Rational thinkers behave like retarded sheep, falling into the same sink hole time and time again while AGWists, staunch opponents of rational thought, have clearly learned from the successes of their ideological kin in the PC and Creationism/ID movements.

Rather than running into the tall weeds chasing after rabbits, rational thinkers need to turn around and drop the buffalo standing in the middle of their camp. Address the foundational anti-logic of AGW (and PC and ID, too). Stop allowing those opposed to rationality, reason, and science, those working to erode Western civilization (and so far, succeeding) to set the rules, define the parameters and divert you from the baseline flaws of their arguments. Why expend weeks of your time and tens of thousands of words arguing with an AGWist over particulate counts in ice cores, walrus stampedes in the Arctic or emission standards in cars when their entire argument is built on fallacies?

I won’t hold my breath waiting for a nice juicy steak.

Tokie

[Ladewig]

Given that you recently started a global warming thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=103585) and never responded to the replies generated, I see no reason to read another one of your lengthy screeds. If you are serious about discussing this matter, then reply to any of the other global warming threads. If you are not serious about discussing the matter, then stop opening new threads.

[JoeEllison]

Given that you recently started a global warming thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=103585) and never responded to the replies generated, I see no reason to read another one of your lengthy screeds. If you are serious about discussing this matter, then reply to any of the other global warming threads. If you are not serious about discussing the matter, then stop opening new threads.

If he were serious, he wouldn't fill his little screeds with so many half-truths and outright lies.

[NobbyNobbs]

and entire nations are poised to impoverish themselves based upon these “facts.”

Proof?


Wherever the baleful eye of PC has turned, academicians have withered before it. Very, very few in academia have been able to withstand an attack of this sort. Studies of Christopher Columbus are case in point. No longer can Columbus be referred to as the visionary navigator, great leader of men or even the expert salesman he was.

Today, this man once revered by everyone from schoolchildren to sage academicians, must be viewed through the PC prism and can only be researched for his catalog of “racist and patriarchal crimes” against the native peoples he encountered, while his skills as a navigator and his vision and drive are blasted as “accidental” and “greedy.” To do otherwise invites censure by one’s peers and economic punishment from one’s institution and its financial backers.

Tokie

Are you suggesting that as we learn new facts about history, we should ignore them?

[JoeEllison]

Proof?




Are you suggesting that as we learn new facts about history, we should ignore them?
He's a radical far-right extremist with a paranoid persecution complex, and he believes reality is rewritten in order to support one viewpoint or another, because he makes things up to match his ideology, and assumes that everyone else must do it to. No fact can sway him, because he believes that facts that disagree with his viewpoint are lies by definition. In the same way, he believes that the lies he tells are "true", or at least contain truthiness, because they support his cult-like political beliefs.

You can't engage in a rational discussion with Tokie, because everything quickly devolves into rants against all the groups he feels are conspiring against him. What you CAN do is poke him, and study the responses that come from him, and try to get a fix on the psychology of this sort of person.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

WELL DONE! :cool:

[JEROME DA GNOME]

He's a radical far-right extremist with a paranoid persecution complex, and he believes reality is rewritten in order to support one viewpoint or another, because he makes things up to match his ideology, and assumes that everyone else must do it to. No fact can sway him, because he believes that facts that disagree with his viewpoint are lies by definition. In the same way, he believes that the lies he tells are "true", or at least contain truthiness, because they support his cult-like political beliefs.

You can't engage in a rational discussion with Tokie, because everything quickly devolves into rants against all the groups he feels are conspiring against him. What you CAN do is poke him, and study the responses that come from him, and try to get a fix on the psychology of this sort of person.


Do you realize you are making one of his points with the above statements?

:boggled:

[INRM]

Political correctness in my opinion is a great threat to freedom of speech as well. It essentially sends a message that free speech and even accuracy take a back-seat to avoiding offending people.

Now, I'm not saying that people should be as mean and nasty as they can. But I don't think people should be afraid to say the truth.


INRM

[mhaze]

A discussion about the alignment of political correctness and the subject of global warming and/or man made global warming?

Wheeeiiii!

[JoeEllison]

Political correctness in my opinion is a great threat to freedom of speech as well. It essentially sends a message that free speech and even accuracy take a back-seat to avoiding offending people.

Now, I'm not saying that people should be as mean and nasty as they can. But I don't think people should be afraid to say the truth.


INRM

The problem is, there's no giant "PC" conspiracy to suppress truth. Whatever "PC" might have meant, its current meaning has been hijacked by radicals to support their lies and bigotry. "Politically Correct" is often used in the same way that other woo woos use terms like "Darwinists" and "Western Medicine." It is a make-believe bogeyman, created to give themselves false credibility by pretending that "The Man" is holding them sown in some way. They can then use the fact that their nonsense has been rejected, as some sort of bizarre backwards "proof" that they are actually right.

[skoob]

Indeed, many scientific publications have for some time now refused to accept any related research that fails to recognize that “warming” is occurring and worse, any such research that fails to attribute this to human activity.
Do you have any examples of such publications and the papers they have refused only because those papers contradict AGW?

[JoeEllison]

Or, to put it another way, imagine two conversations that make my point.

Here's the first one:

Teetotaler: Hey there, buddy, I think you've got a drinking problem.

Casual Drinker: No I don't. I have a glass of wine with dinner occasionally, and sometimes we have a couple of beers on Poker Night, but other than--

Teetotaler: DENIAL!!

Casual Drinker: What?!?

Teetotaler: Denial is a sure sign of alcoholism! You're an alcoholic!

Casual Drinker: But, wouldn't someone who doesn't have a problem also say that they don't have a problem?

Teetotaler: ...well... everyone who drinks has a problem.

And the second:

Global Warming Denialist: Global Warming is a left wing plot to destroy the world's economy, plunge us into chaos, and make everyone wear hemp jeans and Birkenstocks. The worldwide community of scientists and the evil liberal media are conspiring with Al Gore and that evil crying Native American from those 1970's anti-pollution ads, in order to attack capitalism!!

Normal Person: Yeah, but... isn't that a little bit silly? No one would really act that way, and scientists working in labs have little to gain by just making stuff up. Frankly, the whole thing sounds like a nutty conspiracy theory, just like the 9/11 Twoofers, the JFK assassination weirdos, the UFO--

GW Denialist: HAH! You're part of the conspiracy! You hate America!

Normal Person: What?

GW Denialist: See, you've been corrupted by the conspiracy, the lies of the media and the hippies and the commies and the PC police and the other varied forces aligned against democracy and freedom!!



Ok, maybe that was a little exaggerated? But, it does bring up a good point: for some people, evidence presented for their claim is proof of their claim... and evidence against their claim is also proof of their claim, because it proves that there really is a conspiracy trying to suppress their "truth."

[mhaze]

The problem is, there's no giant "PC" conspiracy to suppress truth. Whatever "PC" might have meant, its current meaning has been hijacked by radicals to support their lies and bigotry. "Politically Correct" is often used in the same way that other woo woos use terms like "Darwinists" and "Western Medicine." It is a make-believe bogeyman, created to give themselves false credibility by pretending that "The Man" is holding them sown in some way. They can then use the fact that their nonsense has been rejected, as some sort of bizarre backwards "proof" that they are actually right.

I'm not so sure.

Are you saying that "political correctness" is not quantifiable?

Say from the point of view of linguists who study the change in the use of grammer and language over several decades, a group of changes has occurred in English that in the aggregate, can be said to more or less constitute political correctness.

Would there be attempts to hijack such a juicy plum? Of course!

Are certain views about "global warming" being made part and parcel of political correctness? A good argument could be made in that direction.

[mhaze]

Without even trying I run across juxaposition of global warming and political correctness. First of many examples:
A group of prominent Argentine scientists disputes the theory that human activity is the cause of global warming and demand a “more serious debate”. Eduardo Tonni, head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata, notes that, while it’s not politically correct to dispute this theory (http://www.icecap.us/), the evidence for global warming being a “natural” occurrence is far more compelling.

[fishbob]

Proof?



Tokie don't need no steenkeeng proof.

[Tokenconservative]

Given that you recently started a global warming thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=103585) and never responded to the replies generated, I see no reason to read another one of your lengthy screeds. If you are serious about discussing this matter, then reply to any of the other global warming threads. If you are not serious about discussing the matter, then stop opening new threads.

Don't read it, then. No skin off my nose.

Why do you think I care about whether you read or respond to this?

Your response, by the way, sort of proves what my "lengthy screed" is saying.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

If he were serious, he wouldn't fill his little screeds with so many half-truths and outright lies.

Hmm...such as?

You say this a lot (then you run to complain to the mods when I call YOU a liar...curious), but you can never back it up. Never.

Then you shriek at me: link?! LIIINNKKKKKKK!!!? I should think that if I am presenting half-truths (a bit hard to define) and lies (much easier) you could reference a couple or three. And yet...not so much.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Proof?




Are you suggesting that as we learn new facts about history, we should ignore them?

Proof: Kyoto.

New facts: no...I'm not. That's what PCers say, though. But only if the facts aren't PC. It took most of the 90s for PCers to allow the truth about the warlike nature of the Maya, who were previously held to be peaceful, bucolic, pastoral people, to become well-known.

In that case, a couple or three careers were riding on it (in disciplines like archeo and anthro you only get one shot at making it big).

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

He's a radical far-right extremist with a paranoid persecution complex, and he believes reality is rewritten in order to support one viewpoint or another, because he makes things up to match his ideology, and assumes that everyone else must do it to. No fact can sway him, because he believes that facts that disagree with his viewpoint are lies by definition. In the same way, he believes that the lies he tells are "true", or at least contain truthiness, because they support his cult-like political beliefs.

You can't engage in a rational discussion with Tokie, because everything quickly devolves into rants against all the groups he feels are conspiring against him. What you CAN do is poke him, and study the responses that come from him, and try to get a fix on the psychology of this sort of person.

In the first para here, we see Libbie projection at work. This poster actually believes this, by the way. One of my favorite examples from the left (and this guy exemplifies it) is that in discussions of this sort if I were to misstate something, say I said Columbus sailed the Ocean Blue in 1592...that would be identified by this poster not for what it is, either my ignorance, or a mistatement of fact, or just a screwup, but rather as a LIEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!! And he'd run about screaming as how he'd caught me lying, and would stalk my next oh, 20-25 posts screaming "you a liar...a LIIIIAAARRRRRRRRR!!!"

Which makes it damnably difficult to engage doctrinaire, dogmantic, lockstep, blinkered libs like this in any kind of rational discourse.

But his posting this is certainly helpful to my argument about the way in which leftists rely upon projection.

The bit about my paranoia is also interesting and goes to the same argument: you can't engage doctrinaire, dogmatic, lockstep, blinkered libs like this in rational discourse because, as we see here, in a post where he is calling MY rationality into question, his own post is liberally (heh, heh) littered (isn't that against the Libbie Code, littering?) with logical fallacies, not the least of which is this ad hom.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

WELL DONE! :cool:

Thank you, but make sure you understand exactly who I am taking a swipe at here...

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Do you realize you are making one of his points with the above statements?

:boggled:

LOL!

Nope...he doesn't.

I caught that too.

Now get yourself some popcorn and some Advil to watch how he untangles himself from this.

Should be good!
Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

The problem is, there's no giant "PC" conspiracy to suppress truth. Whatever "PC" might have meant, its current meaning has been hijacked by radicals to support their lies and bigotry. "Politically Correct" is often used in the same way that other woo woos use terms like "Darwinists" and "Western Medicine." It is a make-believe bogeyman, created to give themselves false credibility by pretending that "The Man" is holding them sown in some way. They can then use the fact that their nonsense has been rejected, as some sort of bizarre backwards "proof" that they are actually right.

I'm sure Larry Sommers would agree.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Do you have any examples of such publications and the papers they have refused only because those papers contradict AGW?

LOL!

I LOVE it!

Don't get no better'n this, folks!

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Or, to put it another way, imagine two conversations that make my point.

Here's the first one:

Teetotaler: Hey there, buddy, I think you've got a drinking problem.

Casual Drinker: No I don't. I have a glass of wine with dinner occasionally, and sometimes we have a couple of beers on Poker Night, but other than--

Teetotaler: DENIAL!!

Casual Drinker: What?!?

Teetotaler: Denial is a sure sign of alcoholism! You're an alcoholic!

Casual Drinker: But, wouldn't someone who doesn't have a problem also say that they don't have a problem?

Teetotaler: ...well... everyone who drinks has a problem.

And the second:

Global Warming Denialist: Global Warming is a left wing plot to destroy the world's economy, plunge us into chaos, and make everyone wear hemp jeans and Birkenstocks. The worldwide community of scientists and the evil liberal media are conspiring with Al Gore and that evil crying Native American from those 1970's anti-pollution ads, in order to attack capitalism!!

Normal Person: Yeah, but... isn't that a little bit silly? No one would really act that way, and scientists working in labs have little to gain by just making stuff up. Frankly, the whole thing sounds like a nutty conspiracy theory, just like the 9/11 Twoofers, the JFK assassination weirdos, the UFO--

GW Denialist: HAH! You're part of the conspiracy! You hate America!

Normal Person: What?

GW Denialist: See, you've been corrupted by the conspiracy, the lies of the media and the hippies and the commies and the PC police and the other varied forces aligned against democracy and freedom!!



Ok, maybe that was a little exaggerated? But, it does bring up a good point: for some people, evidence presented for their claim is proof of their claim... and evidence against their claim is also proof of their claim, because it proves that there really is a conspiracy trying to suppress their "truth."

If I din't know better, I'd almost believe you were in here, proving my point like this on purpose.

My guess is that you are so bereft of any ability to think rationally, that you actually believe you are disproving my point with this sort of thing...more projection, yes..but it may also signal some deeper issues.


You know...extreme forms of projection are prevalent in schizophrenics.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Without even trying I run across juxaposition of global warming and political correctness. First of many examples:
A group of prominent Argentine scientists disputes the theory that human activity is the cause of global warming and demand a “more serious debate”. Eduardo Tonni, head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata, notes that, while it’s not politically correct to dispute this theory (http://www.icecap.us/), the evidence for global warming being a “natural” occurrence is far more compelling.

<<<crickets>>>>

[Tokenconservative]

Tokie don't need no steenkeeng proof.

Ah, another equally intellectual contribution!


Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Given that you recently started a global warming thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=103585) and never responded to the replies generated, I see no reason to read another one of your lengthy screeds. If you are serious about discussing this matter, then reply to any of the other global warming threads. If you are not serious about discussing the matter, then stop opening new threads.

By the way. I was suspended shortly after posting this...too many complaints to the mods from people like you.

Tokie

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Thank you, but make sure you understand exactly who I am taking a swipe at here...

Tokie

Ohh, I do. Part of your argument is a swipe at my thoughts. This does not invalidate what you are saying. I am not so thin-skinned that I can not take a smack across the face and still take the logic and reason you have presented into my own thoughts. I know that I am not infallible. I prefer that my logic and reasoning is questioned, otherwise I am nothing more than an automaton.

I did not complement you because I agreed wholly with what you said. I do not. I complemented you because of the logic and reason you used to present your point.

[mhaze]

Proof: Kyoto.

New facts: no...I'm not. That's what PCers say, though. But only if the facts aren't PC. It took most of the 90s for PCers to allow the truth about the warlike nature of the Maya, who were previously held to be peaceful, bucolic, pastoral people, to become well-known.

In that case, a couple or three careers were riding on it (in disciplines like archeo and anthro you only get one shot at making it big).

Tokie

I've pulled off the shelf my copy of Prescott, "The conquest of Mexico and The Conquest of Peru". Dated: 1843. Authoritative reference.

Ready. Well, probably no one will dispute your statement.

Awww....

[hammegk]

Interesting stuff to some I'm sure, yet not Science, Math, Med, or Tech.

Mods, maybe a thread move to, say Social Issues?

Or should it be Conspiracy Theories?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Interesting stuff to some I'm sure, yet not Science, Math, Med, or Tech.

Mods, maybe a thread move to, say Social Issues?

Or should it be Conspiracy Theories?

Is philosophy not a science?

Is sociology not a science?

[mhaze]

I didn't see any conspiracy theory, just the issue of "political correctness in science" and how it affects conclusions or thinking about science. Could fit several places.

[Tokenconservative]

I've pulled off the shelf my copy of Prescott, "The conquest of Mexico and The Conquest of Peru". Dated: 1843. Authoritative reference.

Ready. Well, probably no one will dispute your statement.

Awww....

LOL.

It's long been known of course that the Maya were as bloody and savage as the Aztec (who likely borrowed parts of their savage religion from the Maya), but in keeping with the notions of the Noble Savage, since the savagery of the Aztec was well known (in fact, documents have come to light recently that seem to indicate they were even WORSE than the Conquistadore commanders let on, for fear of scaring the hell out of possible venture capitalists--cannibalism is at the root, and it only makes sense in such a protein poor place--and that it was not greed that led them to start the war against the Aztecs but horror at what they were seeing) it was decided that the Maya should present a ...prettier and more palatable picture and so for 50 or 6 years anyway, we were told how in contrast to the warlike Aztec, the Maya were peaceful and friendly, etc.

PC liked this view. Just as they continue to foster wild tales about N. American natives and how peaceful and loving they were.

When they weren't murdering and raping and enslaving each other, that is.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Interesting stuff to some I'm sure, yet not Science, Math, Med, or Tech.

Mods, maybe a thread move to, say Social Issues?

Or should it be Conspiracy Theories?

Yes!

Quickly!

Let us hide it away!

Let's tag it as a CT though it has no such earmarks!!

Diminish it!

Dismiss it!

Expel it!!!



And add proof.

A good idea.

Tokie

[hammegk]

Is philosophy not a science?
No, and we do have a philosophy section.

Is sociology not a science?
Not the last time I looked at the field. :)

[hammegk]

Yes!

Quickly!

Let us hide it away!

Let's tag it as a CT though it has no such earmarks!!

Diminish it!

Dismiss it!

Expel it!!!



And add proof.

A good idea.

Tokie
As odd as it might seem, I tend to agree with many of your points. Yet, this thread does not belong in this section.

And your continued irrational outbursts like this one do nothing but poison the well.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

No, and we do have a philosophy section.


Not the last time I looked at the field. :)

Behavioral science: a branch of science (as psychology, sociology, or anthropology) that deals primarily with human action and often seeks to generalize about human behavior in society


I think you may need to update your knowledge base.

[quixotecoyote]

Without even trying I run across juxaposition of global warming and political correctness. First of many examples:
A group of prominent Argentine scientists disputes the theory that human activity is the cause of global warming and demand a “more serious debate”. Eduardo Tonni, head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata, notes that, while it’s not politically correct to dispute this theory (http://www.icecap.us/), the evidence for global warming being a “natural” occurrence is far more compelling.

<laugh>

Recap:

Joe: AGW denialists often point to a ludicrous PC conspiracy as part of their argument.

mhaze: Nonsense! After a few minutes of searching I was easily able to find AGW denialists pointing to a ludicrous PC conspiracy as part of their argument.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

As odd as it might, I tend to agree with many of your points. Yet, this thread does not belong in this section.

And your continued irrational outbursts like this one do nothing but poison the well.

Are you not the one attempting to change the topic of discussion?:jaw-dropp

[Mark A. Siefert]

Global Warming Denialist: Global Warming is a left wing plot to destroy the world's economy, plunge us into chaos, and make everyone wear hemp jeans and Birkenstocks. The worldwide community of scientists and the evil liberal media are conspiring with Al Gore and that evil crying Native American from those 1970's anti-pollution ads, in order to attack capitalism!!

Normal Person: Yeah, but... isn't that a little bit silly? No one would really act that way, and scientists working in labs have little to gain by just making stuff up. Frankly, the whole thing sounds like a nutty conspiracy theory, just like the 9/11 Twoofers, the JFK assassination weirdos, the UFO--

GW Denialist: HAH! You're part of the conspiracy! You hate America!

Normal Person: What?

GW Denialist: See, you've been corrupted by the conspiracy, the lies of the media and the hippies and the commies and the PC police and the other varied forces aligned against democracy and freedom!!

Ok, maybe that was a little exaggerated? "

Uuuuummmm No. You're pretty spot on. That's more or less sounded like me during my days as a right-wing global warming (and general environmental) denier. Back then, I received most of my news and opinion from conservative squawk show hosts (e.g. Limbaugh, Reagan, a few local clones, etc.) and I ended up believing that environmentalism was all a bunch of invented doomsday scenarios (e.g. global warming, ozone depletion, acid rain, nuclear winter, etc) invented by Leftish scientists with an anti-capitalist/anti-American agenda. The express purposes of this conspiracy was to influence the governments of the world to enact legislation that would destroy the free market and plunge the country into a left-wing dictatorship.

Of course, I'm feeling much better now.

[fishbob]

Ah, another equally intellectual contribution!

Tokie

Too succinct? Not enough big words?

You repeatedly lay long lines of unsupported assertions. When questioned, you rant and flail about instead of actually supporting your points. This has been pointed out to you many times to no effect. My comment was intended as a reminder to others of your tactics while at the same time trolling for a pith award nomination.

For future reference, you don't get 'intellectual' in response to hyperbolic crap.

[Tokenconservative]

Too succinct? Not enough big words?

You repeatedly lay long lines of unsupported assertions. When questioned, you rant and flail about instead of actually supporting your points. This has been pointed out to you many times to no effect. My comment was intended as a reminder to others of your tactics while at the same time trolling for a pith award nomination.

For future reference, you don't get 'intellectual' in response to hyperbolic crap.

Wow.

When I mean "no, I can't support anything I say," I just usually say "no."

You dun't need to waste all them 'net cells to say "no."

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

As odd as it might seem, I tend to agree with many of your points. Yet, this thread does not belong in this section.

And your continued irrational outbursts like this one do nothing but poison the well.

If a discussion of the way in which irrational thinking tends to turn people from scientific truth does not belong in this thread, where then does it belong?

You suggested the CT thread. This suggests to me that regardless of your words, you are among those who'd rather not have "inconvenient truths" about the religion, AGW, staring you in the face.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I let it take to wing and put some #6 shot up it's backside before plucking and eating it.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Uuuuummmm No. You're pretty spot on. That's more or less sounded like me during my days as a right-wing global warming (and general environmental) denier. Back then, I received most of my news and opinion from conservative squawk show hosts (e.g. Limbaugh, Reagan, a few local clones, etc.) and I ended up believing that environmentalism was all a bunch of invented doomsday scenarios (e.g. global warming, ozone depletion, acid rain, nuclear winter, etc) invented by Leftish scientists with an anti-capitalist/anti-American agenda. The express purposes of this conspiracy was to influence the governments of the world to enact legislation that would destroy the free market and plunge the country into a left-wing dictatorship.

Of course, I'm feeling much better now.

Nothing worse than reformed hookers and smokers....

Tokie

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Nothing worse than reformed hookers and smokers....

Tokie

Beat me to it. :)

[mhaze]

Google says there are bunches of places where GW and PC are thought of coexisting. Of course, correlation is not causation....

Results 1 - 10 of about 393,000 for "global warming (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&oi=dict&ei=DqaTR6nzMZGchQPDqeTOBQ&sig2=2xA3CrvzZte3y-Z5FwxDQQ&q=http://www.answers.com/global%2Bwarming%26r%3D67&usg=AFQjCNHbz8e7Z1DycrDrcUMwJwXlrrrcDg)" and "political correctness (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&oi=dict&ei=DqaTR6nzMZGchQPDqeTOBQ&sig2=3qChRfhnF831AtIAkZ5L0g&q=http://www.answers.com/political%2Bcorrectness%26r%3D67&usg=AFQjCNGcuDsSJDmpI3ZqtyMmiKBETbrsQw)". (0.22 seconds)

Noteworthy: Global Warming and Political Correctness (http://bubbanear.blogspot.com/2006/06/global-warming-and-political.html)

Global Warming and Political Correctness. Since we're sure to hear lots of support for the new AP Global Warming story, as prominently featured with a large ...
bubbanear.blogspot.com/2006/06/global-warming-and-political.html -

American Thinker: 'Global Warming' as Pathological Science (http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/global_warming_as_pathological.html) Science/Tech (http://www.stumbleupon.com/tag/science/tech/)

Today's Global Warming campaign is endangering real, honest science. Global Warming superstition has become an international power grab, and good science ...
www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/global_warming_as_pathological.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/global_warming_as_pathological.html)

Political correctness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness) · Political Science (http://www.stumbleupon.com/tag/political%20science/)

Opponents of mainstream scientific views on evolution, global warming, passive smoking, AIDS and other issues have claimed that political correctness is ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness - 98k -

Politically Correct (http://www.languagemonitor.com/wst_page20.html) Linguistics (http://www.stumbleupon.com/tag/linguistics/)

Macaca, Global Warming Denier, Herstory and Flip Chart Top Annual List ... "In 2006, the Political Correctness movement continued to gain momentum to the ...
www.languagemonitor.com/wst_page20.html (http://www.languagemonitor.com/wst_page20.html)

and many more...

[Safe-Keeper]

Token, why, exactly, do you do this? We have mhaze already for quadruple-posted flame-filled emotional conspiracy theory-and-strawman with fallacy on top-laden garbage. Do you have some sort of point to make?

Indeed, many scientific publications have for some time now refused to accept any related research that fails to recognize that “warming” is occurringTroll.

Even the most hardline neo-conservative denalialists, heck, even mhaze, now accepts that the average global temperature on Earth is rising and has been for 30 years. Either your head is really deep in the sand, or you're a troll. Given the general nature of your post, I'm inclined to believe the latter.

JoeEllison: See also the list comparing Creationist arguments to denialist arguments.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Token, why, exactly, do you do this? We have mhaze already for quadruple-posted flame-filled emotional conspiracy theory-and-strawman with fallacy on top-laden garbage. Do you have some sort of point to make?

You didn't read the OP, did you?

:D

[Mark A. Siefert]

Nothing worse than reformed hookers and smokers....

Tokie

Sure there is: Obnoxious, right-wing, know-nothings with their proverbial heads so far up their figurative ass that they know their colons on a first-name basis.

Pull your head out!

That includes you too Jerome.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Sure there is: Obnoxious, right-wing, know-nothings with their proverbial heads so far up their figurative ass that they know their colons on a first-name basis.

Pull your head out!

That includes you too Jerome.

You are making his point with every post.

:D :D :D

[mhaze]

Token, why, exactly, do you do this? We have mhaze already for quadruple-posted flame-filled emotional conspiracy theory-and-strawman with fallacy on top-laden garbage.....

Hmm....Of course if I said I'd eat a kitten if X occurred, I would in fact eat a kitten. Now you said you would eat a kitten under certain conditions. Those conditions having now been met, are you or are you not going to eat a kitten?

Please respond with the age, weight, color and so forth.

Also, how does one eat a kitten? Pin it down like a frog on the dissection table? Maybe just a quick bite-off-of-the head? Inquiring minds would like to know if there are established, peer reviewed kitten eating methodologies.

Checking wikipedia, we do in fact find alleged kitten eaters - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_reptilian_kitten-eater_from_another_planet)

Sonia Verma of the Toronto Star (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Star) speculated[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_reptilian_kitten-eater_from_another_planet#_note-5) that the original kitten-eater comment may have been a reference to the television show Buffy the Vampire Slayer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer_%28TV_series%29), which at one point featured a kitten-eating demon, a character by the name of Clem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clem). He played "kitten poker", in which kittens are used as chips, and was reputed to eat his winnings.

In the wild, raccoons do eat kittens, as do mother cats. But what does this have to do with political correctness and global warming?

Exploding cat populations have of course been linked to global warming, and the obviously politically incorrect act of eating kittens may have to be re examined as mitigative measure, a job which could be assigned to the United Nations and their lackeys in the IPCC.

By the way, Safekeeper -

heck, even mhaze, now accepts that the average global temperature on Earth is rising and has been for 30 years.

"Now accepts"? Making things up?
And are you going to answer my question about the attitude of Norweigens whom have gotten their $466 higher per year household utility bills for the supposed great cause of "solving global warming?"

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Troll.

Even the most hardline neo-conservative denalialists, heck, even mhaze, now accepts that the average global temperature on Earth is rising and has been for 30 years. Either your head is really deep in the sand, or you're a troll. Given the general nature of your post, I'm inclined to believe the latter.

You are making his point with every post.

:D :D :D

[zooterkin]

My eye was drawn to how this thread appears on the forum index:

Irrational Thinking: A Winner!
Tokenconservative (Today)

which seemed to sum things up nicely.

[Safe-Keeper]

One also has to wonder what irrational thinking has to do with science, math, medicine or technology. Surely reason vs. unreason is more of a philosophy subject?

[Mark A. Siefert]

You are making his point with every post.

:D :D :D

We can say the same for Tokie. That his cries of "conspiracy" and "political correctness" are nothing more than an ideological driven delusion that flies in the face scientific reality and betrays his own willful stupidity.

The "poor, oppressed conservative" bull crap isn't going to cut it around here. Evidence does.

Speakling of which: Jerome, do you have another explanation for the scientific evidence that points to evolution?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

We can say the same for Tokie. That his cries of "conspiracy" and "political correctness" are nothing more than an ideological driven delusion that flies in the face scientific reality and betrays his own willful stupidity.

The "poor, oppressed conservative" bull crap isn't going to cut it around here. Evidence does.

Speakling of which: Jerome, do you have another explanation for the scientific evidence that points to evolution?


I love your use of "code" words to place people into a definable maligned box so as to discard what they say.

Hey, this is to his point also!

[Safe-Keeper]

You are making his point with every post.Not even remotely.

Tokie's posts are nothing but the things I have accused them of being, and the burden of proof was on him to prove they're more than the conspiracy theories I make them out to be. If he wanted me to address whatever facts and evidence he may have for his strawmen and conspiracy theories presented in this thread and others, he would have to actually present them. This he has failed to do, instead creating this thread lamenting how he's not allowed to speak his mind. His posts so far have been devoid of anything useful and have followed an mhaze-ish nature of double-posting, using emotion as a weapon, and complaining about PC, so he's on my ignore list.

I do debate AGW with those who take it seriously and really want to debate it. I even agree to an extent that the reactions by many to criticism of AGW theories are wrong. My many posts here on this subject should be proof that I don't throw 'denialist' and 'ct' card at every AGW sceptic out there.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Not even remotely.

Tokie's posts are nothing but the things I have accused them of being, and the burden of proof was on him to prove they're more than the conspiracy theories I make them out to be. If he wanted me to address whatever facts and evidence he may have for his strawmen and conspiracy theories presented in this thread and others, he would have to actually present them. This he has failed to do, instead creating this thread lamenting how he's not allowed to speak his mind. His posts so far have been devoid of anything useful and have followed an mhaze-ish nature of double-posting, using emotion as a weapon, and complaining about PC, so he's on my ignore list.

I do debate AGW with those who take it seriously and really want to debate it. I even agree to an extent that the reactions by many to criticism of AGW theories are wrong. My many posts here on this subject should be proof that I don't throw 'denialist' and 'ct' card at every AGW sceptic out there.


Does the climate change constantly?

Do we currently have the ideal climate on Earth?

Does man have the understanding of and the ability to substantially change the climate?

[quixotecoyote]

Google says there are bunches of places where GW and PC are thought of coexisting. Of course, correlation is not causation....

Results 1 - 10 of about 393,000 for "global warming (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&oi=dict&ei=DqaTR6nzMZGchQPDqeTOBQ&sig2=2xA3CrvzZte3y-Z5FwxDQQ&q=http://www.answers.com/global%2Bwarming%26r%3D67&usg=AFQjCNHbz8e7Z1DycrDrcUMwJwXlrrrcDg)" and "political correctness (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&oi=dict&ei=DqaTR6nzMZGchQPDqeTOBQ&sig2=3qChRfhnF831AtIAkZ5L0g&q=http://www.answers.com/political%2Bcorrectness%26r%3D67&usg=AFQjCNGcuDsSJDmpI3ZqtyMmiKBETbrsQw)". (0.22 seconds)

Noteworthy: Global Warming and Political Correctness (http://bubbanear.blogspot.com/2006/06/global-warming-and-political.html)

Global Warming and Political Correctness. Since we're sure to hear lots of support for the new AP Global Warming story, as prominently featured with a large ...
bubbanear.blogspot.com/2006/06/global-warming-and-political.html -

American Thinker: 'Global Warming' as Pathological Science (http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/global_warming_as_pathological.html) Science/Tech (http://www.stumbleupon.com/tag/science/tech/)

Today's Global Warming campaign is endangering real, honest science. Global Warming superstition has become an international power grab, and good science ...
www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/global_warming_as_pathological.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/global_warming_as_pathological.html)

Political correctness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness) · Political Science (http://www.stumbleupon.com/tag/political%20science/)

Opponents of mainstream scientific views on evolution, global warming, passive smoking, AIDS and other issues have claimed that political correctness is ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness - 98k -

Politically Correct (http://www.languagemonitor.com/wst_page20.html) Linguistics (http://www.stumbleupon.com/tag/linguistics/)

Macaca, Global Warming Denier, Herstory and Flip Chart Top Annual List ... "In 2006, the Political Correctness movement continued to gain momentum to the ...
www.languagemonitor.com/wst_page20.html (http://www.languagemonitor.com/wst_page20.html)

and many more...


Recap:

Joe: AGW denialists often point to a ludicrous PC conspiracy as part of their argument.

mhaze: Nonsense! After a few minutes of searching I was easily able to find AGW denialists pointing to a ludicrous PC conspiracy as part of their argument.

quix: I hereby use humor to point out you are making Joe's point for him.

mhaze: Oh YEAH?? Here's THREE MORE sources of AGW denialists pointing to a ludicrous PC conspiracy as part of their argument.

quix: I sense you may soon be in the market for a new shovel.

eta: I especially enjoyed the one that claimed a PC conspiracy while comparing climatologists to Stalinists.

[CapelDodger]

Recap:

Joe: AGW denialists often point to a ludicrous PC conspiracy as part of their argument.

mhaze: Nonsense! After a few minutes of searching I was easily able to find AGW denialists pointing to a ludicrous PC conspiracy as part of their argument.

quix: I hereby use humor to point out you are making Joe's point for him.

mhaze: Oh YEAH?? Here's THREE MORE sources of AGW denialists pointing to a ludicrous PC conspiracy as part of their argument.


quix: I sense you may soon be in the market for a new shovel.

eta: I especially enjoyed the one that claimed a PC conspiracy while comparing climatologists to Stalinists.

:D

It's almost too good to be true, isn't it?

mhaze's first example has a Gore-count of 9; I haven't checked the others.

ETA : the blubbanear link has a Gore-count of 11. The American Thinker has zero, but it makes up for that with Lysenko.

[brodski]

I love your use of "code" words to place people into a definable maligned box so as to discard what they say.


You mean words like "politically correct"?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You mean words like "politically correct"?

I think you get the gist. More like frame activating words.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

"...it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

[JoeEllison]

JoeEllison: See also the list comparing Creationist arguments to denialist arguments.
Did you mean my list (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3175007&postcount=16), or some other list? :D

[JoeEllison]

Recap:

Joe: AGW denialists often point to a ludicrous PC conspiracy as part of their argument.

mhaze: Nonsense! After a few minutes of searching I was easily able to find AGW denialists pointing to a ludicrous PC conspiracy as part of their argument.

quix: I hereby use humor to point out you are making Joe's point for him.

mhaze: Oh YEAH?? Here's THREE MORE sources of AGW denialists pointing to a ludicrous PC conspiracy as part of their argument.

quix: I sense you may soon be in the market for a new shovel.

eta: I especially enjoyed the one that claimed a PC conspiracy while comparing climatologists to Stalinists.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!

You'd almost think I was psychic, wouldn't you? The sad part is that the "opposition" is so weak that we can announce the exact ways that they are being foolish and illogical, and they will answer by being foolish and illogical in those exact ways! :D

[mhaze]

Recap:

Joe: AGW denialists often point to a ludicrous PC conspiracy as part of their argument.

mhaze: Nonsense! After a few minutes of searching I was easily able to find AGW denialists pointing to a ludicrous PC conspiracy as part of their argument.

quix: I hereby use humor to point out you are making Joe's point for him.

mhaze: Oh YEAH?? Here's THREE MORE sources of AGW denialists pointing to a ludicrous PC conspiracy as part of their argument.

quix: I sense you may soon be in the market for a new shovel.

eta: I especially enjoyed the one that claimed a PC conspiracy while comparing climatologists to Stalinists.

Hey, have fun! I only posted the first couple of entries juxaposing the two terms. I could not care less what you found and would proudly like to take the floor for five seconds to spout about.

Have some more fun! Google is fun, isn't it?

Wow.....

Tokie really stirred the warmers up with this one.

Guess no one is happy when they are outed as politically correct...

[brodski]

Guess no one is happy when they are outed as politically correct...

I think it is at this point that JEROME DA GNOME has something to say to you...
For constancies sake if naught else.

[Safe-Keeper]

Did you mean my list (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3175007&postcount=16), or some other list? :biggrin:Oh, so it was your list. Pardon me.

[quixotecoyote]

Hey, have fun! I only posted the first couple of entries juxaposing the two terms. I could not care less what you found and would proudly like to take the floor for five seconds to spout about.

Have some more fun! Google is fun, isn't it?

Wow.....

Tokie really stirred the warmers up with this one.

Guess no one is happy when they are outed as politically correct...

You can't be this oblivious.

Which side is bringing up 'politically correct"? Can you answer that question based on your own links?

[mhaze]

You can't be this oblivious.

Which side is bringing up 'politically correct"? Can you answer that question based on your own links?

Side?

I stand firmly and resolutely on the side of seeing Safekeeper eat a kitten to assist in resolving the menace of cat explosions due to global warming, while conjointly but plausibly toning down old fashioned and obselete notions of political correctness regarding cat care.

Resolute this stand may be, I do confess to having absolutely no clue what this conversation is supposed to be about. So pardon me while I go back to read the OP.

Oh...by the way....

A bit of PC (politically correct) sauce? It comes in bland, neutered, and bitter. Then there is the low fat type with a Braille readable label, which is also made in special low emissions plants.

PC sauce is good with kittens. :D

[quixotecoyote]

You can't be this oblivious.

Which side is bringing up 'politically correct"? Can you answer that question based on your own links?

hmmm apparently not.

[CapelDodger]

hmmm apparently not.

Give him time. mhaze posts while he thinks, and he posts a lot faster than he thinks. He Googles faster than either.

[mhaze]

Give him time. mhaze posts while he thinks, and he posts a lot faster than he thinks. He Googles faster than either.

Nonsense. You have been fooled by a liar named quixotecoyote.

Originally Posted by mhaze
Google says there are bunches of places where GW and PC are thought of coexisting. Of course, correlation is not causation....
(follows google output)



And quixotecoyote said I said this.
mhaze: Nonsense! After a few minutes of searching I was easily able to find AGW denialists pointing to a ludicrous PC conspiracy as part of their argument.

[quixotecoyote]

Nonsense. You have been fooled by a liar named quixotecoyote.

Originally Posted by mhaze
Google says there are bunches of places where GW and PC are thought of coexisting. Of course, correlation is not causation....
(follows google output)



And quixotecoyote said I said this.
mhaze: Nonsense! After a few minutes of searching I was easily able to find AGW denialists pointing to a ludicrous PC conspiracy as part of their argument.

It's a decent paraphrase. You should check your sources. It's your fellow denialists ranting about the PC bogeyman, just as JoeEllison predicted.

The funniest part is that you don't realize the problem you're facing and you keep making it worse. :D

The more times you refer to AGW denialists bunching their panties over an imagined PC conspiracy, the more it proves Joe's point, so please continue to do so.

[JoeEllison]

Uuuuummmm No. You're pretty spot on. That's more or less sounded like me during my days as a right-wing global warming (and general environmental) denier. Back then, I received most of my news and opinion from conservative squawk show hosts (e.g. Limbaugh, Reagan, a few local clones, etc.) and I ended up believing that environmentalism was all a bunch of invented doomsday scenarios (e.g. global warming, ozone depletion, acid rain, nuclear winter, etc) invented by Leftish scientists with an anti-capitalist/anti-American agenda. The express purposes of this conspiracy was to influence the governments of the world to enact legislation that would destroy the free market and plunge the country into a left-wing dictatorship.

Of course, I'm feeling much better now.
LOL!

I didn't say it was A LOT exaggerated... :cool:

The problem with the denialist position has little to do with science, and a whole lot to do with the fuzzy, conspiracy theorist/wooster psychology behind it. As I'm sure you can confirm, the reason that a right-winger would deny AGW has more to do with the fact that environmental issues are seen as "left-wing" issues, than any real issue pertaining to the science.

[JoeEllison]

It's a decent paraphrase. You should check your sources. It's your fellow denialists ranting about the PC bogeyman, just as JoeEllison predicted.

The funniest part is that you don't realize the problem you're facing and you keep making it worse. :D

The more times you refer to AGW denialists bunching their panties over an imagined PC conspiracy, the more it proves Joe's point, so please continue to do so.
You know I'm not going to complain about them making me look more and more prescient each time they post... :D

You have to wonder, though, about people who stick to their scripts so strongly, that even when we point out how foolish their repetition of that script makes them look, they are fundamentally incapable of deviating from it in any meaningful way. I sort of feel bad for them...

[Ladewig]

By the way. I was suspended shortly after posting this...too many complaints to the mods from people like you.

Tokie

I did not know. I withdraw the assertion and apologize.

[fishbob]

Does the climate change constantly?

Do we currently have the ideal climate on Earth?

Does man have the understanding of and the ability to substantially change the climate?

1 - no, intermittantly, with speed-ups and slow-downs and stops and starts.

2 - ideal for what?

3a - working on it
3b - apparently so

Hmmmm - now what?
The past being the key to the present, JDG will most likely not respond, then ask the same irrelevant questions in about 15 more posts.

[Kotatsu]

PC liked this view. Just as they continue to foster wild tales about N. American natives and how peaceful and loving they were.

When they weren't murdering and raping and enslaving each other, that is.

I am curious; what made this PC crowd change their minds?

[Dr Adequate]

When I mean "no, I can't support anything I say," I just usually say "no." Usually, eh?

So I suppose this ...

Rational Thinkers vs. Anthropogenic Global Warmingists.
Why Rational Thinkers Have (Again) Failed

The issue of so-called Global Warming or its more en vogue nom de guerre, “Climate Change” has risen to utterly dominate any and all discussions of ecology, environment, weather and climate today. Primary to the argument that the planet is undergoing a period of marked, global rise in mean temperature is the “consensus” view that human industrial activity is the cause. Indeed, many scientific publications have for some time now refused to accept any related research that fails to recognize that “warming” is occurring and worse, any such research that fails to attribute this to human activity.

Today, it’s widely accepted in public science, in government and in the populace as a whole that global warming is happening and that humans are causing it to happen, and entire nations are poised to impoverish themselves based upon these “facts.”

Political Correctness: Silencing Dissent.
Anthropogenic Global Warming’s (AGW) closest ancestor is the political correctness movement that swept academia in the 1980s and ‘90s, and that continues today to put a chill on all academic research and reporting, but most especially in the liberal arts. This movement, designed by forces on the political left as a means of coercively driving thinking in a certain direction, has been very effective.

Relying upon a witch-hunt mentality and the positive feedback loop this can create in academic circles, it has been wildly successful--dissent has disappeared to the point where today, adherents are able to point to current works and at the same time both deny that PC is at work and proudly crow over it’s success in chilling dissenting opinion.

As in any witch-hunt, any who speak up quickly find themselves on the outs among true believers and abandoned by those frightened into agreement or at least silence. Any who dare research, teach or speak oppositely, no matter how innocently, quickly find themselves in hot water with their academic employers or educators.

Those who might have spoken out need observe only one classmate receiving failing grades or being snubbed from post-graduate studies, or to see but a single colleague whose contract is not renewed, or whose research is de-funded or denied altogether to get the message. Seeing all the heads on pikes at the gates to the academy, and fearing for their own current or future their careers, dissenting voices whether students or professors retreated to a point over the academic horizon in the ‘90s.

This feedback loop is insidious: the fewer who are kept from teaching, speaking, researching and learning honestly, the more it appears that “no one” is disagreeing. Soon, though it’s never admitted that such a thing even exists, the canon of works and research that receives funding fits the politically correct mold. Older works deemed outside these parameters are tarred with the “ism” brush and identified as “racist,” “sexist,” “homophobic,” “Euro centric,” or “patriarchal.”

Any living and still-working researchers who take exception to having their previously canonize works now dismissed as unacceptable for these reasons, are themselves shunned across academia and quickly find that unless they admit their past sins and convert to the new faith, they have become persona non grata in a world they once ruled.

In this way, true believers in the PC movement are able to silence researchers retroactively, remove their works and diminish those who were not so long ago, giants in their fields. By this devious process, PCers are then able to point to the current canon in confidence, noting how little published work there is that takes a view contrary to that acceptable to PC. And clearly if “no one” in the discipline thinks “that way,” it must be wrong!

Wherever the baleful eye of PC has turned, academicians have withered before it. Very, very few in academia have been able to withstand an attack of this sort. Studies of Christopher Columbus are case in point. No longer can Columbus be referred to as the visionary navigator, great leader of men or even the expert salesman he was.

Today, this man once revered by everyone from schoolchildren to sage academicians, must be viewed through the PC prism and can only be researched for his catalog of “racist and patriarchal crimes” against the native peoples he encountered, while his skills as a navigator and his vision and drive are blasted as “accidental” and “greedy.” To do otherwise invites censure by one’s peers and economic punishment from one’s institution and its financial backers.

Creationism and Intelligent Design: Prove it Didn’t Happen!
Beyond academia, and in fact seemingly utterly counter to it, are the Creationists and the Intelligent Design (ID) movements. While tracing their beginnings to a time before PC, the Creationists really didn’t get their feet under them until the ID movement that arose from the ashes of moderate Creationist defeat in the late 90s-early 2000s joined them. This movement co-opted real science and tweaked it to fit their religious mythologies. The infamous case of the fossil “human” footprints alongside those of a dinosaur had been a staple of the Creationist argument, never mind the logical flaws of the argument that goes: since scientists cannot prove that these footprints are not human then they must be human! ID has taken this sort of “reasoning” to dizzying new heights and argues that since toddler (or younger) sciences are unable to “prove” this or that, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that leaves only one possibility: some “intelligence” must have created it all!

IDers say that since the “missing links” in direct assent from primordial ooze to the man on the street are not present, the complexities of the human eye are too great to ascribe to the mere “chance” of evolution. IDers further demand that evolutionists explain the symbiotic organisms that reside only in the guts of so many animals. How, they demand, did these often microscopic creatures “know” to set up housekeeping in a tiger rather than a cow, or a man rather than a goanna?

Evolutionary science cannot provide grade school-level answers to these questions, and IDers know it. They use that fact to stand before PTAs and Kiwanis club meetings, or in “debates” with evolutionist paper tigers insisting that if science can’t provide a rock-solid explanation, right now, today, then it’s clear that it’s not evolution at work, but rather the “watchmaker!”

The antilogical “reasoning” used to arrive at such conclusions is intellectually stultifying. Rational thinkers tend to either look on in gape-mouthed amazement or to dismiss as utter poppycock such anti-intellectual, religiosity. After all, it’s not science’s job to prove or disprove a Creator. Unfortunately, stunned silence is purposefully identified by IDers as arrogant dismissal, which the IDer can then point to as more evidence that “they don’t know!” or that “they are afraid to face us!”

Now imagine coupling the sort of irrational thinking that informs ID with the witch-hunt mentality of PC. But wait! You don’t have to imagine it. It’s happening. It’s called AGW--Anthropogenic Global Warming. Zealous proponents within this movement, one that bears all the major hallmarks of a religion, have (unlike their opponents) clearly not ignored the lessons of the PC and ID movements.

They use all of the dissent-silencing fear of PC while fully engaging the irrationality and generally ignorance of advanced science used by ID. But they, like these, their ideological forebears, have also turned to that most reliable of all possible allies, an indefatigable partner that they know they can always count on to help: the very people who would argue against AGW.

When the PC and Creationism/ID movements made their most outrageous arguments, who was there to bolster those arguments by agreeing that these arguments were legitimate? Their rational opposition, of course, either with frightened acquiescence (PC) or silent dismay (ID). Today, AGW counts on rational thinkers to either remain silent in abject fear, or to engage in debate only on AGW terms.

AGW has defined the terms, the parameters, the rules and the boundaries of the discussion, and rather than returning the argument to the baseline where the brighter AGWists know they can be defeated, supposed rational thinkers spend all their time debating hockey sticks, or long-term temperature charts or microbe counts in ice cores--anything, it seems to avoid addressing the foundations of AGW which are a straw man and projection.

The AGWist formula is quite simple: The AGWist begins his or her argument and bases everything after that in the straw man assertion that disagreement with AGW is tacitly stating that climate is static. From here AGW argues with the further logical fallacies of guilt by association and the vested interest fallacy that lump all rationalist thinkers on this issue in with political conservatives working to preserve the profits of “Big Oil” and with religious views that hold to the “young earth” belief. So any rational thinker enters the debate identified (and permitting that identification) as a religious nutcase who believes the earth is only 6,000 years old, who is a tool of “Big Oil,” and who believes that climate does not change.

Couple this with the classic Freudian projection used by AGW, wherein one claims that some other demonstrates a personality trait or engages in actions that the claimant him or herself actually demonstrates (in it’s more radical presentations, this is a typical to schizoid behaviors) and you’ve got a formidable foe--if you ignore the fact that your foe’s arguments are based in these untenable foundations.

No truly rational thinker believes climate does not change. And while certainly some of those who “deny” global warming do so for religious reasons, most rational thinkers find this assertion astounding in its baldly dishonest misrepresentation of their views. The historical and geologic and other records are quite clear: climate changes. Often radically, and sometimes quite quickly. At the same time AGWist are claiming that all “deniers” believe in a static climate, they also claim that absent human industrial activity, climate would not be changing today--that climate is in fact static, that if not for man, climate would not be changing.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too. But rational thinkers have decided to give AGWists a pass on that old saw. Rational thinkers following the same pattern they have with the PC and ID movements is something AGW depend on. It’s as if it were a soccer (football) game in which your team’s coach says that it’s impolite to single out the fellow with the ball. Instead you can only block those on the field who hasn’t got the ball. Can there be any doubt as to the outcome of such a game?

As occurred in both the PC and ID movements, this habitual acquiescence to the opponents’ will, playing by his rules and observing his boundaries, has permitted the AGW movement to grow ever more shrill, hysterical and demanding, to the point where it is now threatening the economic health of entire nations.

While rational thinkers engage AGWists in long, heated debates over whether particulate matter in an ice core suggests 1 or 3+/- C warmer conditions 120,000 years ago, and allow AGWists to assert that behaviors certain animals have always engaged in are now evidence of anthropogenic global warming, or arguing what a two centimeter rise in sea level as opposed to a four centimeter rise will do to civilization, AGWists are having a good laugh.

Rational thinkers should be, well, rational. Why have they so easily and entirely given up the high ground time and time again? Why have they permitted their irrational, dangerous opponents to outflank them with this same maneuver again and again? Even a flatwork can be taught to avoid a heated blade. Rational thinkers behave like retarded sheep, falling into the same sink hole time and time again while AGWists, staunch opponents of rational thought, have clearly learned from the successes of their ideological kin in the PC and Creationism/ID movements.

Rather than running into the tall weeds chasing after rabbits, rational thinkers need to turn around and drop the buffalo standing in the middle of their camp. Address the foundational anti-logic of AGW (and PC and ID, too). Stop allowing those opposed to rationality, reason, and science, those working to erode Western civilization (and so far, succeeding) to set the rules, define the parameters and divert you from the baseline flaws of their arguments. Why expend weeks of your time and tens of thousands of words arguing with an AGWist over particulate counts in ice cores, walrus stampedes in the Arctic or emission standards in cars when their entire argument is built on fallacies?

I won’t hold my breath waiting for a nice juicy steak.

Tokie ... is just some freak aberration, yes?

[Dr Adequate]

Translations From The Paleoconservative

While rational thinkers ...

When denialists ...

... engage AGWists in long, heated debates over whether particulate matter in an ice core suggests 1 or 3+/- C warmer conditions 120,000 years ago, and allow AGWists to assert that behaviors certain animals have always engaged in are now evidence of anthropogenic global warming, or arguing what a two centimeter rise in sea level as opposed to a four centimeter rise will do to civilization

... engage their opponents in debates on scientific questions ...

... AGWists are having a good laugh.

Rational thinkers should be, well, rational. Why have they so easily and entirely given up the high ground time and time again? Why have they permitted their irrational, dangerous opponents to outflank them with this same maneuver again and again?

... they always get their butts kicked ...

Rational thinkers behave like retarded sheep.

... and behave like retarded sheep.

The AGWist formula is quite simple: The AGWist begins his or her argument and bases everything after that in the straw man assertion that disagreement with AGW is tacitly stating that climate is static. From here AGW argues with the further logical fallacies of guilt by association and the vested interest fallacy that lump all rationalist thinkers on this issue in with political conservatives working to preserve the profits of “Big Oil” and with religious views that hold to the “young earth” belief. So any rational thinker enters the debate identified (and permitting that identification) as a religious nutcase who believes the earth is only 6,000 years old, who is a tool of “Big Oil,” and who believes that climate does not change.

Instead they should drool out halfwitted lies about their opponents' views ...

Why expend weeks of your time and tens of thousands of words arguing with an AGWist over particulate counts in ice cores, walrus stampedes in the Arctic or emission standards in cars when their entire argument is built on fallacies?

... and then debate against their own stupid strawmen instead of the actual views of their opponents or any question actually relating to AGW.

Today, AGW counts on rational thinkers to either remain silent in abject fear ...

They should make themselves ridiculous with abject paranoia ...

... dissent-silencing fear ...

... complain about being "silenced" at the very tops of their voices, incessantly ...

Anthropogenic Global Warming’s (AGW) closest ancestor is the political correctness movement ...

... whine about "political correctness" while reciting every shibboleth of their own chosen political group ...

... threatening the economic health of entire nations ... entire nations are poised to impoverish themselves ... working to erode Western civilization

... make unevidenced predections of catastrophe befalling Western civilization if their opponents' voices are heard ...

... shrill, hysterical and demanding ...

... while calling their opponents "shrill" and "hysterical" in the same sentence, just for added irony.

Primary to the argument that the planet is undergoing a period of marked, global rise in mean temperature is the “consensus” view that human industrial activity is the cause.

While ignoring the scientific consensus, and producing no scientific debate ...

those opposed to rationality, reason, and science, those working to erode Western civilization

... they should substitute paranoid and dishonest personal attacks on their opponents ...

Zealous proponents within this movement, one that bears all the major hallmarks of a religion, have (unlike their opponents) clearly not ignored the lessons of the PC and ID movements.

... such as comparing their opponents to creationists ...

And while certainly some of those who “deny” global warming do so for religious reasons ...

... (unless of course like so many denialists, they happen to be creationists, in which case I guess they should compare them to Godless Darwinianismist Evil-utionists) ...

Couple this with the classic Freudian projection used by AGW, wherein one claims that some other demonstrates a personality trait or engages in actions that the claimant him or herself actually demonstrates (in it’s more radical presentations, this is a typical to schizoid behaviors)

... and having adopted creationist tactics to the letter while pretending that their opponents are like creationists, insinuate that anyone who notices this absurdity is mentally ill.

one that bears all the major hallmarks of a religion

Just in case anyone's missed how AGW denialism is based on creationist tactics, denialists should follow this up by calling the current scientific consensus a "religion", that always gets a laugh when creationists do it ...

They use all of the dissent-silencing fear of PC while fully engaging the irrationality and generally ignorance of advanced science used by ID.

... as does ignoring the scientific consensus and ducking the scientific issues while accusing your opponents of being ignorant of science.

Above all ...

Rational Thinkers vs. Anthropogenic Global Warmingists.
Why Rational Thinkers Have (Again) Failed

<snip>

Tokie

... above all, aspirant denialists should remember lesson one. They should never, ever, ever even try to put up any sort of scientific argument against AGW. That's just asking for a big bag of fail.

Of course, attempting to substitute hysteria, paranoia, lies, gibberish and temper tantrums for scientific debate is also asking for failure, not to mention ridicule and contempt, but it requires less intellectual effort then trying to understand science.

[Cardelitre]

Thanks for the translation. :D

[skoob]

LOL!

I LOVE it!

Don't get no better'n this, folks!

TokieThat's great.

Anyway, I'm still very interested in seeing actual examples of suppression of research. Is there something wrong with that?

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze
Nonsense. You have been fooled by a liar named quixotecoyote.
Originally Posted by mhaze
Google says there are bunches of places where GW and PC are thought of coexisting. Of course, correlation is not causation....
(follows google output)
And quixotecoyote said I said this.
mhaze: Nonsense! After a few minutes of searching I was easily able to find AGW denialists pointing to a ludicrous PC conspiracy as part of their argument.



It's a decent paraphrase. You should check your sources. It's your fellow denialists ranting about the PC bogeyman......


You are an outright liar.

But thanks for sticking to your pile of warm and smelly stuff there.

I simply noted the two phrases had a certain count together in Google, and made a point of noting "correlation is not causation."

No doubt we have valid point of disagreement, so one does wonder why you feel the need to make up some more. Care to admit that you went a bit too far, a bit too hastily with your comments?

[Tokenconservative]

Beat me to it. :)

The hookers or the smokers?

Jeez...I hope my wife dun't find out!

[Tokenconservative]

Token, why, exactly, do you do this? We have mhaze already for quadruple-posted flame-filled emotional conspiracy theory-and-strawman with fallacy on top-laden garbage. Do you have some sort of point to make?

Troll.

Even the most hardline neo-conservative denalialists, heck, even mhaze, now accepts that the average global temperature on Earth is rising and has been for 30 years. Either your head is really deep in the sand, or you're a troll. Given the general nature of your post, I'm inclined to believe the latter.

JoeEllison: See also the list comparing Creationist arguments to denialist arguments.

LOL!

Jerome and Haze....could we ask for a better response to verify EXACTLY what I am saying?

Could we?

Huh!? HUUHHHHHHHH!!!!???

Sheesh.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Sure there is: Obnoxious, right-wing, know-nothings with their proverbial heads so far up their figurative ass that they know their colons on a first-name basis.

Pull your head out!

That includes you too Jerome.

Of course, were I to suggest you had your head so far up you fat, widening ass that you can count the stars in the midnight sky, I'd have woken to a complaint being filed against me...

But boy..you shore dun tolt me!!!

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

One also has to wonder what irrational thinking has to do with science, math, medicine or technology. Surely reason vs. unreason is more of a philosophy subject?

Possibly.

But in this case I a making (partially) the point that in fact science has been co-opted by two of these movements and turned completely on its head for both Creation/ID and AGW.

So I think this is the right home for this thread.

Tokie

[Pixel42]

I'm still very interested in seeing actual examples of suppression of research.
The BBC's environment correspondent made an open call for such examples over a year ago, promising to investigate each one. He summarised the results in November:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7092614.stm

[Tokenconservative]

Not even remotely.

Tokie's posts are nothing but the things I have accused them of being, and the burden of proof was on him to prove they're more than the conspiracy theories I make them out to be. If he wanted me to address whatever facts and evidence he may have for his strawmen and conspiracy theories presented in this thread and others, he would have to actually present them. This he has failed to do, instead creating this thread lamenting how he's not allowed to speak his mind. His posts so far have been devoid of anything useful and have followed an mhaze-ish nature of double-posting, using emotion as a weapon, and complaining about PC, so he's on my ignore list.

I do debate AGW with those who take it seriously and really want to debate it. I even agree to an extent that the reactions by many to criticism of AGW theories are wrong. My many posts here on this subject should be proof that I don't throw 'denialist' and 'ct' card at every AGW sceptic out there.

1. Where, exactly, in the OP do I say "conspiracy"? Projecting that onto me is...typical.

This is an opinion piece...while I refer to events in the real world, they are well-enough known events to not require copious evidence in the form of the demanded (by you) links--LIIIINNNKKKSSSSSS!!!!

Do you deny that PC is real and/or that it was/is a movment?

Do you deny that Creationism/ID is real and/or that it was/is a movement?

Do you deny that AGW is real and/or that it is a movement?

(please do not attempt now to offer the hoary, diversionary, shreiking reply that GW IS REAL!!!).

2. Where, exactly, in the OP do I claim I am not being permitted to "speak my mind"? Can you reference it? I have no idea what "double-posting" is. Is this posted here more than once? If so, that has nothing to do with me.

3. If I am on you ignore list...thanks! Haze and me are competing to see who can be on the most ignore lists..I think I am ahead by a few right now. But since I am on your ignore list that suggest that um...you haven't even read the OP and are only responding out of your visceral, vituperative hatred for the poster (can someone who is a rational thinker repost this so this guy gets it?).

4. No, you "debate" those who agree with the ANTHRO part of AGW, and those who want to argue by your alarmist, doctrinaire rules...returning the "debate" to its core is off the table for you, and for good reason--you are bright enough to know that what I am saying is accurate and IF the debate goes in that direction, hoo boy! Your entire secular religion, based as it is in "science" (a socialist desire to see the destruction of Western free market capitalism, especially in the US) will be in deep doo-doo!

Tokie

[volatile]

The BBC's environment correspondent made an open call for such examples over a year ago, promising to investigate each one. He summarised the results in November:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7092614.stm

Great article, thanks for linking it.

Maybe the most germane paragraphs are these:

"No-one said they had been refused a place on the IPCC, the central global body in climate change, or denied a job or turned down for promotion or sacked or refused access to a conference platform, or indeed anything else. If there is an anti-sceptic bias running through the institutions of science, it is evidently keeping itself well hidden."

and

"Andres Millan, who wrote to me on the subject from Mexico, offered another explanation for why scientific journals, research grants, conference agendas and the IPCC itself are dominated by research that backs or assumes the reality of modern-day greenhouse warming.

'Most global warming sceptics have no productive alternatives; they say it is a hoax, or that it will cause severe social problems, or that we should allocate resources elsewhere,' he wrote.
'Scientifically, they have not put forward a compelling, rich, and variegated theory.

'And until that happens, to expect the government, or any source of scientific funding, to give as much money, attention, or room within academic journals to the alternatives, seems completely misguided.'"





Unsurprisingly, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of the bias you accuse, TC.

[Cuddles]

As warned here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3345398#post3345398). Since most people seem incapable of discussing this issue civily, you are now restricted to this thread only (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=102773) for discussing global warming. Do not start any new threads and do not attempt to discuss the issue anywhere else.

[Tokenconservative]

Great article, thanks for linking it.

Maybe the most germane paragraphs are these:

"No-one said they had been refused a place on the IPCC, the central global body in climate change, or denied a job or turned down for promotion or sacked or refused access to a conference platform, or indeed anything else. If there is an anti-sceptic bias running through the institutions of science, it is evidently keeping itself well hidden."

and

"Andres Millan, who wrote to me on the subject from Mexico, offered another explanation for why scientific journals, research grants, conference agendas and the IPCC itself are dominated by research that backs or assumes the reality of modern-day greenhouse warming.

'Most global warming sceptics have no productive alternatives; they say it is a hoax, or that it will cause severe social problems, or that we should allocate resources elsewhere,' he wrote.
'Scientifically, they have not put forward a compelling, rich, and variegated theory.

'And until that happens, to expect the government, or any source of scientific funding, to give as much money, attention, or room within academic journals to the alternatives, seems completely misguided.'"





Unsurprisingly, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of the bias you accuse, TC.


V: in most threads you make a great deal about your "logic," but also in most threads you demonstrate virtually none.

How is this reporter to find articles that were NOT published?

Does he go into any detail about his methodology? Did it occur to him or her that those not being published might not be eager to make a fuss over it, given the witch-hunt mentality surrounding this currently?

I doubt it, given the left-leaning tendencies of reporters at the Beeb.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Translations From The Paleoconservative

While rational thinkers ...

When denialists ...

... engage AGWists in long, heated debates over whether particulate matter in an ice core suggests 1 or 3+/- C warmer conditions 120,000 years ago, and allow AGWists to assert that behaviors certain animals have always engaged in are now evidence of anthropogenic global warming, or arguing what a two centimeter rise in sea level as opposed to a four centimeter rise will do to civilization

... engage their opponents in debates on scientific questions ...

... AGWists are having a good laugh.

Rational thinkers should be, well, rational. Why have they so easily and entirely given up the high ground time and time again? Why have they permitted their irrational, dangerous opponents to outflank them with this same maneuver again and again?

... they always get their butts kicked ...

Rational thinkers behave like retarded sheep.

... and behave like retarded sheep.

The AGWist formula is quite simple: The AGWist begins his or her argument and bases everything after that in the straw man assertion that disagreement with AGW is tacitly stating that climate is static. From here AGW argues with the further logical fallacies of guilt by association and the vested interest fallacy that lump all rationalist thinkers on this issue in with political conservatives working to preserve the profits of “Big Oil” and with religious views that hold to the “young earth” belief. So any rational thinker enters the debate identified (and permitting that identification) as a religious nutcase who believes the earth is only 6,000 years old, who is a tool of “Big Oil,” and who believes that climate does not change.

Instead they should drool out halfwitted lies about their opponents' views ...

Why expend weeks of your time and tens of thousands of words arguing with an AGWist over particulate counts in ice cores, walrus stampedes in the Arctic or emission standards in cars when their entire argument is built on fallacies?

... and then debate against their own stupid strawmen instead of the actual views of their opponents or any question actually relating to AGW.

Today, AGW counts on rational thinkers to either remain silent in abject fear ...

They should make themselves ridiculous with abject paranoia ...

... dissent-silencing fear ...

... complain about being "silenced" at the very tops of their voices, incessantly ...

Anthropogenic Global Warming’s (AGW) closest ancestor is the political correctness movement ...

... whine about "political correctness" while reciting every shibboleth of their own chosen political group ...

... threatening the economic health of entire nations ... entire nations are poised to impoverish themselves ... working to erode Western civilization

... make unevidenced predections of catastrophe befalling Western civilization if their opponents' voices are heard ...

... shrill, hysterical and demanding ...

... while calling their opponents "shrill" and "hysterical" in the same sentence, just for added irony.

Primary to the argument that the planet is undergoing a period of marked, global rise in mean temperature is the “consensus” view that human industrial activity is the cause.

While ignoring the scientific consensus, and producing no scientific debate ...

those opposed to rationality, reason, and science, those working to erode Western civilization

... they should substitute paranoid and dishonest personal attacks on their opponents ...

Zealous proponents within this movement, one that bears all the major hallmarks of a religion, have (unlike their opponents) clearly not ignored the lessons of the PC and ID movements.

... such as comparing their opponents to creationists ...

And while certainly some of those who “deny” global warming do so for religious reasons ...

... (unless of course like so many denialists, they happen to be creationists, in which case I guess they should compare them to Godless Darwinianismist Evil-utionists) ...

Couple this with the classic Freudian projection used by AGW, wherein one claims that some other demonstrates a personality trait or engages in actions that the claimant him or herself actually demonstrates (in it’s more radical presentations, this is a typical to schizoid behaviors)

... and having adopted creationist tactics to the letter while pretending that their opponents are like creationists, insinuate that anyone who notices this absurdity is mentally ill.

one that bears all the major hallmarks of a religion

Just in case anyone's missed how AGW denialism is based on creationist tactics, denialists should follow this up by calling the current scientific consensus a "religion", that always gets a laugh when creationists do it ...

They use all of the dissent-silencing fear of PC while fully engaging the irrationality and generally ignorance of advanced science used by ID.

... as does ignoring the scientific consensus and ducking the scientific issues while accusing your opponents of being ignorant of science.

Above all ...

Rational Thinkers vs. Anthropogenic Global Warmingists.
Why Rational Thinkers Have (Again) Failed

<snip>

Tokie

... above all, aspirant denialists should remember lesson one. They should never, ever, ever even try to put up any sort of scientific argument against AGW. That's just asking for a big bag of fail.

Of course, attempting to substitute hysteria, paranoia, lies, gibberish and temper tantrums for scientific debate is also asking for failure, not to mention ridicule and contempt, but it requires less intellectual effort then trying to understand science.

Hmm....you expended a good deal of energy responding like this, but said nothing.

Why?

Best wishes,
Tokie

[mhaze]

V: in most threads you make a great deal about your "logic," but also in most threads you demonstrate virtually none.

How is this reporter to find articles that were NOT published?

Does he go into any detail about his methodology? Did it occur to him or her that those not being published might not be eager to make a fuss over it, given the witch-hunt mentality surrounding this currently?

I doubt it, given the left-leaning tendencies of reporters at the Beeb.

Tokie

Well, that is one of Richard Black's articles. They seem to not deserve a title such as "left-leaning."

More like pure propaganda.

Amazing that anyone would cite Richard Black as a credible source.

[varwoche]

many scientific publications have for some time now refused to accept any related research that fails to recognize that “warming” is occurring and worse, any such research that fails to attribute this to human activity. I invite you to support this conspiracy theory in an apropos thread:

CTs Concerning Global Warming Science (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=104463)

[jsfisher]

I invite you to support this conspiracy theory in an apropos thread:

CTs Concerning Global Warming Science (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=104463)

In fairness to Tokenconservative, his comment could be interpreted as a general statement about journal editors: Editors of scholarly publications favor articles that support the "main stream" scientific world view.
(That would be a difficult allegation to prove since it would require a good deal of inside information about acceptance rates for submissions by type, etc, but it is at least a plausible assertion.)

Tokenconservative did not allege a conspiracy. A conspiracy would require overt planning and organized efforts by the journal editors towards a common goal. The presumption of conspiracy is yours, and the annexation of "theory" to it was meant to dismiss his comment by ridicule rather than with substance.

Be that as it may, Tokenconservative still should either support his allegation with at least some modicum of evidence, or he should retract it.

[varwoche]

In fairness to Tokenconservative... I agree by and large (in retrospect). Pardon my overboard characterization TC.

[jsfisher]

I agree by and large (in retrospect). Pardon my overboard characterization TC.

That still leaves the challenge to Tokenconservative to support his allegation.

[Pixel42]

How is this reporter to find articles that were NOT published? Does he go into any detail about his methodology?
Yes, he states it clearly. He gave an open invitation to those who claim there is systemic bias to provide evidence for that claim, and investigated the responses he received.

It is generally accepted around here that the burden of proof for any claim is on the person making the claim. Someone who comes here and claims, say, that Bigfoot exists is expected to provide the evidence for that claim themselves. If they respond that Bigfoot is shy so anyone who doubts his existence should mount a major expedition into Bigfoot territory and systematically search every square metre for evidence of Bigfoot they would be given pretty short shrift. Why should this claim be treated any differently?

[Tokenconservative]

Well, that is one of Richard Black's articles. They seem to not deserve a title such as "left-leaning."

More like pure propaganda.

Amazing that anyone would cite Richard Black as a credible source.

I was trying to be polite, Haze...you should too, you naughty, naughty boy.

What, you'd rather a quote from CBS? The Guardian? The NYTimes!?

Will nothing suffice!?

Remember, just because a source is a communist and an activist in the "Green" movement, his or her position in the objective, centrist media put he or she above suspicion.


Unless he or she reports in the....wrong way. Then, clearly, he or she is a tool of big oil.


Best wishes,
Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

I invite you to support this conspiracy theory in an apropos thread:

CTs Concerning Global Warming Science (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=104463)

I didn't say it was a "conspiracy" of the UFO, Illuminati, Bildeberger sort.

There are conspiracies of commission, and conspiracies, if you will, of omission. In this case, the latter applies more than the former. Do the editors of these publications gather, don hooded robes, chant around a stone altar and plan their nefarious doings?

No. But as true believers themselves who've convinced themselves (and have an eye out for the