Originally Posted by Vandal-72

When the case has been "proved" already and your opponent continues to deny it, what then Socrates? Deniers have been shown the evidence and had their lies exposed over and over again and the next week or in another forum they will spout off the exact same lies. More "logic and evidence" is not what is called for in their case. The only effective strategy is to call a denier what they are. Call them deniers repeatedly. Make sure that any witnesses to the "discussion" are completely aware of the fact that the denier is lying, yet again. Call that bullying if you want but you do grave insult to people who have suffered real bullying. Deniers are just dicks who whine about being called on their dickishness.

Posting stuff like this must make you seem like a hero to those who agree with you, but to a neutral observer you've just proven his point.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Posting stuff like this must make you seem like a hero to those who agree with you, but to a neutral observer you've just proven his point.

If you look back at the older posts in this thread, way back when the 'skeptics' used to present real pseudo science to defend their views. I remember a theory that cosmic rays create ions in the atmosphere which encourage cloud formations. It was backed up with some lab experiments, some theory, and pointers to a few papers that suggest base cosmic ray rates do change over time. There were real problems with it. One can measure cosmic ray intensity. It hadn't been changing, let alone changing in portion to climate. Also, the papers saying cosmic ray intensity change had a base cause of the Earth orbiting the center of the galaxy, entering and exiting the galactic arms. This is a very slow process, on a time scale similar to continental drift. No way could it produce a significant change over a few decades. The distances are just to large, the speeds too slow.

Another time there was an anomaly in the warming data based on Russian records. Mikebert and I found a source for the original records, which didn't say what the skeptics claimed of them.

But lately we haven't been rebutting the 'skeptic' pseudo-science. There is nothing to speak of being presented on the forums to rebut. The thread has devolved into ad-hominum and questioning of motives. There is also still the correlation between political alignment and 'skeptic' beliefs. Those that deny the science are conservatives and libertarians. Only those with strong core values suggesting the government is a bad tool to solve problems are unable to admit there is a problem big enough that governments are going to have to be involved. The flip side might be true as well. Progressives tend to see government as an appropriate tool to solve problems. We are more apt to see and try to solve.

To me, this thread is a simple illustration of values lock. Humans can't see what they don't want to see, will see what their way of looking at the world prepares them to see. Beliefs are often more important than facts. It is easier to shut one's eyes than to honestly reevaluate one's way of perceiving the world.

It is certainly easier to hurl insults than to look up the science.

Originally Posted by B Butler

To me, this thread is a simple illustration of values lock.

Of course it is. "Values lock" is your favorite catch-phrase.

Many years ago, I had accepted AGW theory as fact. Never questioned it. Then I started reading posts on this thread, which supposedly "proved" the theory. Hoo boy.
There were so many holes in those arguments that I started to wonder. Then I got labeled a "denialist." Which, I agree with Gatadoxia, is a lot like calling someone a "heretic." Well, that's actually just fine by me. I'll be glad to make my next avatar "nihilist moron denialist." It should save the insult-hurlers some energy, and by golly we all need to reduce our carbon footprint!

By the way, even if AGW is a Fact, it's painfully obvious that human beings aren't willing to make the drastic changes in their lives that would be needed to stop it. Especially the "don't have so many darned kids already" change. Hell, we can't even get Asian guys to stop buying poached rhino horn, because they think it will make their limp dicks hard.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Of course it is. "Values lock" is your favorite catch-phrase.

LOL! No you didn't!
(Maybe Bob's "values lock" is that he sees(ie: characterizes)
a lot of stuff through a 'values lock'-POV/Metric. )

Originally Posted by NM

Many years ago, I had accepted AGW theory as fact. Never questioned it. Then I started reading posts on this thread, which supposedly "proved" the theory. Hoo boy.
There were so many holes in those arguments that I started to wonder. Then I got labeled a "denialist." Which, I agree with Gatadoxia, is a lot like calling someone a "heretic." Well, that's actually just fine by me. I'll be glad to make my next avatar "nihilist moron denialist." It should save the insult-hurlers some energy, and by golly we all need to reduce our carbon footprint! <snipped ultra-smiley>

By the way, even if AGW is a Fact, it's painfully obvious that human beings aren't willing to make the drastic changes in their lives that would be needed to stop it. Especially the "don't have so many darned kids already" change. Hell, we can't even get Asian guys to stop buying poached rhino horn, because they think it will make their limp dicks hard.

This is all just too logical.
(BTW, you're on a roll! )


Prince

PS: I've got a question for everybody/anybody.

Hypothetically speaking, if I'm a 'non-believer' in AGW
(or whatever the hell it's being called these days! ),
am I a "denier"?

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

PS: I've got a question for everybody/anybody.

Hypothetically speaking, if I'm a 'non-believer' in AGW
(or whatever the hell it's being called these days! ),
am I a "denier"?

But, of course

You might as well own up to it.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Of course it is. "Values lock" is your favorite catch-phrase.

Many years ago, I had accepted AGW theory as fact. Never questioned it. Then I started reading posts on this thread, which supposedly "proved" the theory. Hoo boy.

What could possibly be wrong with our posts here?

There were so many holes in those arguments that I started to wonder. Then I got labeled a "denialist." Which, I agree with Gatadoxia, is a lot like calling someone a "heretic." Well, that's actually just fine by me. I'll be glad to make my next avatar "nihilist moron denialist." It should save the insult-hurlers some energy, and by golly we all need to reduce our carbon footprint!

Where you see holes, we see carbon footprints.

Calling someone a denialist, means they can see the facts if they only look, but just prefer to "deny" them. Especially because accepting it might entail loosening of their "values lock." Particularly that, hey, it might entail paying some taxes to that horrible militaristic, violent "government" that shouldn't do anything, because "it's the problem." Or words to that effect (pick your phrase).

By the way, even if AGW is a Fact, it's painfully obvious that human beings aren't willing to make the drastic changes in their lives that would be needed to stop it. Especially the "don't have so many darned kids already" change. Hell, we can't even get Asian guys to stop buying poached rhino horn, because they think it will make their limp dicks hard.

I doubt anyone ever said this was going to be easy.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But, of course

Eric, I'm actually being serious.
(because this is, you know, a 'serious discussion'. )


Prince

PS:

Originally Posted by Eric

You might as well own up to it.

I'm taking 'the fifth'.

Originally Posted by takascar2

Prove that "most" "denial" (there is that disparaging word again) is funded by people who have a financial stake.

Not just one or two examples. List all of the studies over the past, oh, 20 year that tend to refute or cast doubt on the AGW theories and then prove (or at least show some evidence) about which ones are funded by such folks and then do the math that shows that 50%+1 or more of them fall into this category.

Making statements like yours without proving it is very unscientific. Again, its about data and numbers - you need to show your work
when talking about science, including statements that more than half of the AGW-skeptical studies are phoney.

The fact is that at least 97% of scientists are convinced that human use of fossil fuels is causing global warming, which has serious consequences (species murder, loss of sustaining resources, increased destructive storms, inundation of property, etc.). Those who disagree are funded by fossil fuels companies.

Here's a good article:
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...ments-debunked

Originally Posted by Gianthogweed

You can say the same thing about the global warming scientists. They are funded by government grants and special interest groups who have a vested interest in a lot of the proposed "solutions" to global warming. I'm not a climate scientist either so I'm not qualified to debate the scientific aspects of this issue, but I've noticed that the global warming supporters tend to, more often, resort to condescending bullying tactics and that reflects poorly on their side's ability to prove their case based on logic and evidence.

And the activities of the Koch Brothers to support the fossil fuel companies and their Republican politicians who use smear tactics and lies are not "bullying tactics?"

And of course, anything that "the government" says or does is automatically suspect, because "government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem" yadda yadda yadda. values lock.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Hypothetically speaking, if I'm a 'non-believer' in AGW
(or whatever the hell it's being called these days! ),
am I a "denier"?

Yes, hypothetically speaking, even if you are not denying anything, you are a "denialist." There is no neutrality; you're either with us (them) or with the terrorists.

P.S. With regards to values lock, did you notice how these two sentences came almost immediately one after the other?

The thread has devolved into ad-hominum and questioning of motives.

Those that deny the science are conservatives and libertarians.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Eric, I'm actually being serious.
(because this is, you know, a 'serious discussion'. )


Prince

Good! I hope you read the articles we "affirmers" post.

PS:

I'm taking 'the fifth'.

You mean, a fifth? Of what? or, a toke? (as in, what are you smokin'? )

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Yes, hypothetically speaking, even if you are not denying anything, you are a "denialist." There is no neutrality; you're either with us (them) or with the terrorists.

P.S. With regards to values lock, did you notice how these two sentences came almost immediately one after the other?

Fine. Read the evidence and study up, and we are all free to post our opinions on a discussion forum like this.

And I think it's also a valid point of view to notice the strong trend among conservatives and libertarians to oppose admitting that global warming is a fact, because it entails more government regulations and taxes.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

And I think it's also a valid point of view to notice the strong trend among conservatives and libertarians to oppose admitting that global warming is a fact, because it entails more government regulations and taxes.

The flip side:
"And I think it's also a valid point of view to notice the strong trend among liberals and democrats to present global warming as a fact, because it entails more government regulations and taxes."

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Yes, hypothetically speaking, even if you are not denying anything, you are a "denialist." There is no neutrality; you're either with us (them) or with the terrorists.

LMAO!
(this is all freakin' weird, IMO)

Originally Posted by NM

P.S. With regards to values lock, did you notice how these two sentences came almost immediately one after the other?

No, because I've basically stopped reading a lot of posts by certain people.
I mean, after a while, what's the point, really?(eg: PBR's-Nomenklatura! )
(I seriously don't mean to pick-on Bob here; I think he's basically an 'ok dude').

That is really funny, though.


Prince

PS: FWIW, I'm guessing it's generally a case of 'One-Dimensional Thinking'.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

The flip side:
"And I think it's also a valid point of view to notice the strong trend among liberals and democrats to present global warming as a fact, because it entails more government regulations and taxes."

Yeah, as if we liberals want something done by government, just because government would be doing it.

I don't think it quite applies, bro, but if it suits your denialist propensity, then go for it!

Yeah, you're either with us, or you're with the denialists and climate destroyers. Well, unless you're neutral. BUT, someone who's genuinely neutral, won't be neutral for long, if they bother to read up on the subject, because they will learn the facts.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't think it quite applies, bro, but if it suits your denialist propensity, then go for it!

Denialist propensity? Hardly:

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Many years ago, I had accepted AGW theory as fact. Never questioned it.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Of course it is. "Values lock" is your favorite catch-phrase.

When discussing anything related to The Theory, yes. People don't act sensibly. They will cling to the as-is until the as-is causes disaster. At this point you have a crisis. Meanwhile, mere logic and evidence are not sufficient to change minds. It isn't just Global Warming. The endless senseless bickering you'll find on most any thread on this site will illustrate just how difficult it is for people to change, to see things as they are rather than as they are predisposed to want things to be.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I doubt anyone ever said this was going to be easy.

Assuming there is truth to The Theory, and assuming that there will be no major action on global warming this crisis, and assuming that as usual the Values of the crisis don't change through the First Turning...

Remember how much the GIs were despised by the young Boomers last Awakening? Remember all that focused energy driving for change? By the next awakening, when the Millenials are in power and the Green Generation is coming of age, when it will be absolutely impossible for even a cynical idiot to deny the obvious, I foresee the 60s are going to look like a time of Love and Peace in comparison to the Green Awakening.

The best argument for the Millenials to get together and push for action now might be self defense. If anyone thinks the Boomers are bad, we only had draft cards, coat hangers, multiple sets of rest rooms and stinking water. The next set of Prophets are apt to have serious issues to deal with.

Wow, great job Vandal. That saved me a lot of work. Our usernames may be in direct conflict but there hasn't been much else on this forum thus far.

One other thing that I'd add is that there's a difference between science and public policy. Science can do a good job of telling us objective facts, but public policy has the task of using those facts to craft a plan to adjust to those facts at hand. In the case of the AGW skeptic, he or she still has the burden of explaining a wide array of other issues with fossil fuels and other substances that emit GHGs. These are thinks like air and water pollution, deforestation and land degradation, scarcity, and possible geopolitical issues of national security or uneven resource distribution and consumption. So if you're going to ignore AGW, you still have a whole host of other issues to address.

Originally Posted by B Butler

The endless senseless bickering you'll find on most any thread on this site will illustrate just how difficult it is for people to change, to see things as they are rather than as they are predisposed to want things to be.

I think it's more like an illustration of how some people can't handle reading opinions other than their own. That's when they start using terms like moron, denialist, etc.

P.S. Serious question for you or anyone else who wants to tackle it:
Do you believe that calling people denialists, liars etc helps them to change, to see things as they really are?

Originally Posted by Bronco80

In the case of the AGW skeptic, he or she still has the burden of explaining a wide array of other issues with fossil fuels and other substances that emit GHGs.

Wait. What?
Why can't someone be skeptical or neutral on the issue of AGW but still be in favour of using renewable resources? l

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The fact is that at least 97% of scientists are convinced that human use of fossil fuels is causing global warming, which has serious consequences (species murder, loss of sustaining resources, increased destructive storms, inundation of property, etc.). Those who disagree are funded by fossil fuels companies.

Here's a good article:
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...ments-debunked

Again, prove that 97 percent is true - quoting a politically biased newspaper doesn't count

All newspapers have a bias.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Posting stuff like this must make you seem like a hero to those who agree with you, but to a neutral observer you've just proven his point.

Nope. A neutral observer? Can you show me evidence that anyone who claims such a position is in fact actually neutral?

Got anything that actually refutes my claims or are you just interested in concern trolling?

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Of course it is. "Values lock" is your favorite catch-phrase.

Many years ago, I had accepted AGW theory as fact. Never questioned it. Then I started reading posts on this thread, which supposedly "proved" the theory. Hoo boy.

Translation: " I like to think of myself as a contrarian and rebel, so I'll side with the minority."

There were so many holes in those arguments that I started to wonder.

Funny how all the experts that actually collect, analyze and interpret the real data have failed to see all of those holes. Ever considered stepping up and actually publishing some scientific research on these holes to help out the world's foremost experts on the topic? Or should we just recognize that you just want to stroke your own ego in peace?

Then I got labeled a "denialist."

Which you are.

Which, I agree with Gatadoxia, is a lot like calling someone a "heretic."

Gotta love the ego stroking martyr complex. It's a fallacy classic.

Well, that's actually just fine by me. I'll be glad to make my next avatar "nihilist moron denialist." It should save the insult-hurlers some energy, and by golly we all need to reduce our carbon footprint!

Contrarian, rebel self-image (delusion). See above.

By the way, even if AGW is a Fact, it's painfully obvious that human beings aren't willing to make the drastic changes in their lives that would be needed to stop it.

"Something is hard. We better give up on it right away," said every great person in history.

Especially the "don't have so many darned kids already" change. Hell, we can't even get Asian guys to stop buying poached rhino horn, because they think it will make their limp dicks hard.

Yes, why not throw in some straight up racism to fulfill your contrarian rebel fantasy.