"This Changes Everthing"

[ShogunRua]

I was on goodreads last night and I had a book recommended to me called The Tyranny of Clichés: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas. Nice provocative title, so I clicked it and then went to the other books the same guy wrote. He wrote another called Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning. I then went to read the reviews just to see what people thought and if it was worth my time. You know what the highest rated review was? A gif of a guy rolling his eyes and saying basically "I can't even." This is how liberals and SJW argue. They have no points to make because they are ruled by emotion. This is how they argue:

Right. The main thing to notice is whether the argument is dialectical or rhetorical in nature, and to respond in kind. Too often, people make the mistake of responding to liberal/SJW rhetorical arguments with dialectics, which never works.

If that's not immediately clear, consider this topic as an example. A dialectical argument would have been "I consider there to be strong evidence in favor of anthropogenic global warming because the temperature variations in the last eight years are within the bounds of IPCC model #32 predicted in 2007, an improvement over previous models because of..."

If you notice, Suture Self and hellboy, despite seemingly countless posts stretching on for pages, have yet to make a single dialectical argument.

Instead, their arguments are all purely rhetorical. hellboy; "But think of what a calamity it would be if the AGW alarmists are actually correct! We have to do something!" Suture; "It's all some evil conspiracy that I can't provide any evidence for...and I will conveniently ignore the actual Climategate scandal of 2009 where e-mails admitted data was doctored!"

Again, these are all rhetorical arguments. They don't present any ideas or even touch upon the science.

Now, responding to these rhetorical arguments with a discussion of the science, a dialectical argument, would be absolutely useless. Especially since hellboy and Suture have both made clear they don't give a damn about the science, and know nothing about atmospheric science to begin with.

So one has to respond to their rhetorical arguments with rhetorical arguments of one's own. Obviously, one won't convince them, since they're both SJW/liberal True Believers, and like all religious zealots, will instantly reject any heresy. But it does make them look foolish to more neutral readers of the topic.

[Suture Self]

Nah, pretty sure I talked about the science multiple times, particularly with Stewball. Pretty sure the vast majority of my arguments have been empirical claims, which I've provided links for time and time again.

Of course, the extent of my scientific knowledge only goes so far, which is why, when it comes to science, trust is crucial. I know you repeatedly claim you're a scientist, but let's be real, you study mathematics and economics, you're not a climate scientist, and neither am I. The crux of the problem here is about who we trust: I trust scientists, you trust a bunch of jerks.

[Pickpocket]

Of course, the extent of my scientific knowledge only goes so far, which is why, when it comes to science, trust is crucial.

Oh boy, what a dangerous way to think. I'm not a scientist or an expert either but blind trust is something that I would never give anyone

If you notice, Suture Self and hellboy, despite seemingly countless posts stretching on for pages, have yet to make a single dialectical argument.

Instead, their arguments are all purely rhetorical. hellboy; "But think of what a calamity it would be if the AGW alarmists are actually correct! We have to do something!" Suture; "It's all some evil conspiracy that I can't provide any evidence for...and I will conveniently ignore the actual Climategate scandal of 2009 where e-mails admitted data was doctored!"

Ha, did you ever listen to the free speech podcast? This interview: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2moml ... -lewis_fun highlights this point perfectly. Drink every time Jeff says "I think" or "I feel"

[Suture Self]

Of course, the extent of my scientific knowledge only goes so far, which is why, when it comes to science, trust is crucial.

Oh boy, what a dangerous way to think. I'm not a scientist or an expert either but blind trust is something that I would never give anyone

Who said anything about blind trust?

[Pickpocket]

Of course, the extent of my scientific knowledge only goes so far, which is why, when it comes to science, trust is crucial.

Oh boy, what a dangerous way to think. I'm not a scientist or an expert either but blind trust is something that I would never give anyone

Who said anything about blind trust?

You did. When you say you will trust a collective of people because you don't understand them you are willingly subjugating them to shape your opinions for you. "when it comes to science, trust is crucial." Why? Is science impervious to corruption? Do you think when Al Gore got involved with climate change it was because he was a noble human being who only wanted to better the world? No, he did it for money. http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2 ... ment-hype/

[Suture Self]

You did. When you say you will trust a collective of people because you don't understand them you are willingly subjugating them to shape your opinions for you. "when it comes to science, trust is crucial."

I find this post puzzling, because I assume you don't also share this perspective with regard to other aspects of science, unless you'd like to correct me on that. I'm assuming you believe in basic things, like the speed of light being roughly 670 million miles per hour, or the earth being roughly 4.5 billion years old, yet I almost guarantee you don't have the knowledge or tools to measure the speed of light, and I sincerely doubt you know anything about radiometric dating. You believe these statements about the world as a result of trust. So, basic point: when I need brain surgery done, I don't try to figure out how to do it myself, I go to a fucking brain surgeon, because we trust brain surgeons to do the job better than we could ourselves.

Science is a massive enterprise. Even if you excel in one area, there are hundreds of other areas you're going to be ignorant about. This is why, generally speaking, when it comes to information about the world, we trust people who are qualified experts: biologists about biology, physicists about physics, chemists about chemistry.........and climate scientists about the climate.

[Pickpocket]

You did. When you say you will trust a collective of people because you don't understand them you are willingly subjugating them to shape your opinions for you. "when it comes to science, trust is crucial."

I find this post puzzling, because I assume you don't also share this perspective with regard to other aspects of science, unless you'd like to correct me on that. I'm assuming you believe in basic things, like the speed of light being roughly 670 million miles per hour, or the earth being roughly 4.5 billion years old, yet I almost guarantee you don't have the knowledge or tools to measure the speed of light, and I sincerely doubt you know anything about radiometric dating. You believe these statements about the world as a result of trust. So, basic point: when I need brain surgery done, I don't try to figure out how to do it myself, I go to a fucking brain surgeon, because we trust brain surgeons to do the job better than we could ourselves.

So now you're adding a straw man argument to your wheelhouse? You're expanding

Science is a massive enterprise. Even if you excel in one area, there are hundreds of other areas you're going to be ignorant about. This is why, generally speaking, when it comes to information about the world, we trust people who are qualified experts: biologists about biology, physicists about physics, chemists about chemistry.........and climate scientists about the climate

Yes, but we do not trust them without impunity. If a doctor recommends that you get back surgery do you just do it? Or do you get another opinion? And if you were to get a second opinion, which you would be foolish not to, this invalidates your claim completely.

[Suture Self]

Yes, but we do not trust them without impunity. If a doctor recommends that you get back surgery do you just do it? Or do you get another opinion?

Yeah, which is why, if almost every doctor you go to tells you that you desperately need back surgery, you get back surgery. You don't dogmatically march with the small minority that says back surgery isn't necessary.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... 94025/meta

"These results suggest that scientists who are climate change skeptics are outliers and that the majority of scientists surveyed believe in anthropogenic climate change and that climate science is credible and mature."

[hellboy76]

Yeah, I am done. If you are seriously debating that one party tows the line against man having a hand in climate change, and big oil, you are too far gone to be taken seriously.

What "party" are you even talking about? A political party? Is THAT what you meant? I'm neither a member of the Democrats nor the Republicans. I have no clue what most skeptics consider themselves politically, especially since so many are Europeans, where they don't even have the same two parties, and there is no major debate over oil, you provincial dolt.

So to summarize, you made a completely bullshit assumption which you

1. Provided zero evidence for.

2. Couldn't even clearly articulate.

But I'm the "fucking blind" one, not you. Christ, and I thought Agosto and Suture were dumb. You take the cake. And at least with Suture, he purposely plays dumb.

But like I said, idiots always project their flaws onto others.

Why would any sane person not want to err on the side of caution if we could do something to make a change?

You know, the Bible predicts Armageddon at some point. Do we need to "err on the side of caution" hellboy, and live exactly as the Bible tells us to, since our immortal souls are at stake?

Well, there is as much credible evidence for the Bible as there is anthropogenic global warmin-err, "climate change". Which is to say, none.

Man, what happened to you, hellboy? I recall you being borderline reasonable in the past. Did you suffer some traumatic brain injury in the past few months?

Yes, I read one too many of your nonsense posts.

Yes a political party, which I felt the word party adequately defined. Perhaps you felt I meant birthday party? If you read the posts leading up to it, it clearly referenced billionaires and republicans. Stop being a bitch.

The money funneling in to denial scientists can largely be attributed to oil and U.S. conservative affiliated think tanks. This does not seem to be conincidental.

Simply pointing out no one really argues which political party supports the denial arguments, attacking either the science, or basically attacking science in general.

The evidence of funding for many denial scientists (that you yourself linked to) was already provided earlier in the posts by Suture, which you promptly ignored.

Here is a list of Senate votes on whether human activities affect climate change.

http://www.wired.com/2015/01/senators-dont-believe-human-caused-climate-change/

49 votes no, humans don't. 49. All from one party. This is statistically curious and the point I was making. One party lines up in unison.

The top 20 receiving oil money: https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?cycle=2014&ind=E01 19 of which are one party.

Here is the previous quote by the way:

97% of world scientists are proven wrong by a small group of republicans and billionaires without any science background because the scientists made the whole thing up to get their precious research grant money. They would have gotten away with it too, but luckily Fox News, and the oil and gas industry, were able to follow the money and see through their obvious deception.

Obviously snarky and tongue in cheek, but how you can't figure out I am talking about political parties when I mention them by name is beyond me. You're lack of comprehension isn't my problem.

Regarding Armageddon; Now who is being a fucking dolt? If there is any scientific evidence backing the Bible and the return of Christ, yes we should err on the side of caution. Since there isn't, there is no comparison.

And fuck off, I have NEVER been borderline reasonable, you take it back.

[hellboy76]

Hellboy, don't do it. Don't do it, man.

You realize how silly this is coming from you? I have made 10 posts in this topic thus far. This will be my 11th. You've made what...60? 70? 80? Considering you have sometimes quadrupled posted in a row, you might genuinely have made more posts than everyone else in this topic combined.

SJWs always project.

I was on goodreads last night and I had a book recommended to me called The Tyranny of Clichés: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas. Nice provocative title, so I clicked it and then went to the other books the same guy wrote. He wrote another called Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning. I then went to read the reviews just to see what people thought and if it was worth my time. You know what the highest rated review was? A gif of a guy rolling his eyes and saying basically "I can't even." This is how liberals and SJW argue. They have no points to make because they are ruled by emotion. This is how they argue:

If one side is wrong, and man has no influence on what happens to the earth via climate change, what's the worst that happens?

If the other side is wrong and we do, what's the worst that happens?

They don't even realize how insane that is. Hey, let's just do this thing because if we are right great and if we are wrong, oh well we only wasted billions of dollars and we can just increase the tax on the rich to get it back!

I'm reminded of this classic video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0Ic50n5uUM in which a land whale is upset that someone is causing pollution with their car. You know what's really bad for the environment? Being 150 pounds overweight like this fat cunt. SJW's are always overweight. Always. And they have the fucking balls to demand billions to fix a problem that may or may not exist. Societies ruled by emotion always crumble.

Why would any sane person not want to err on the side of caution if we could do something to make a change?

Truly a baffling question. Why would anyone not want to waste billions of dollars. I encourage you to start a business so you can learn something about calculated risk.

How is it wasteful to move towards alternate methods of energy and cleaner standards? Does it cost money? Sure. So does continuing to rely on non renewable energy. What's a better long term strategy? If there were zero benefit to any sort of conversion you would be correct, wasteful, but that simply isn't the case even if there was no such thing as climate change at all.

The true insanity is that you know an entire group of people is overweight based on their opinions on various topics. Gee that debate point is way more scientific than anything presented previously and doesn't seem ruled by emotion or pure vitriol or anything.