Libertarian friend: But... but... scientists are never wrong!
Friend #1: Climate change MUST exist, because the Dems say it does. The media caters to them, and therefore subscribes to their crackpot theories. Since it's on TV, it MUST be true, right?
I mean... just because they changed the name from 'Global Warming' to Global Climate Change' because their warming theories were disproved doesn't mean they're still wrong, does it?
Leftwit: The trollForce is strong in you Jack. No body that knows anything about science has ever said that scientists are never wrong. In fact they are more wrong than right and that is the marvelous thing about science. Leftwit: btw, does NASA fiddle with temperature data?
Why is he asking this question? Has he not at this point read the above article? I didn't know so I thought I'd illuminate the poor boy by linking to Google.
Leftwit: The conversation of climate change as a fact and the conversation of how much mankind is influencing it are different conversations. However if you Lol you poor misguided fools. Again with your lack of understanding the gradient scale. Just because someone says "climate change is real", your self imposed limitations make you lump everyone that says that in the same boat.
Again insulting language almost as if he's not interested in conversation, but displaying loyalty to his tribe. I'm reminded that Orwell thought advertising was generally more honest than propaganda. Propaganda unlike advertising intends to build solidarity within the group while advertising is about gaining new customers. That is propaganda pretends to persuade, but actually often sets up barriers to persuasion by use of insult. It's mostly because its primary focus is keeping the tribe from exiting the reservation. Propaganda shames the subject into avoiding bad think. Exclusion & disqualification hammer the pegs into place. Thus they are perfectly suited to maintain the status quo within r selected tribes. The Leftwits rage is his first indication of his defective amygdala. His persistence in the face of an attempt at rational discourse is confirmation. Here is the Libertarian's response:
Libertarian Friend: I'll ignore the derogatory comments and address the issue at hand:My friend's obvious error is in thinking that his opponent has any regard for reason or logic this is simple tribal signaling. He is asserting dominance through soft disingenuousness. Goalpost shifting follows:
Of course climate change is a fact. I don't know anyone who disputes that. The climate is constantly changing and has been since the formation of the planet. For millions of years that change has been driven by natural forces. What we skeptics are disputing is whether or not human activity is responsible at the present time and, if so, to what degree.
We also think it's wise to ask whether we can do anything about it, whether we should, and what the consequences will be if we do or do not. These are questions that need to be discussed and answered before we make drastic changes to human existence that involve granting massive powers of control through taxation and regulation to governments and trans-governmental bodies.
There are some scientists who can point to evidence showing that human activity is directly responsible for climate change and that the consequences will be catastrophic. There are other scientists, equally as knowledgeable and credible, who believe that human activity has a miniscule impact and they have evidence to back up their conclusions.
When you add in the incorrect data, misinterpreted data, and falsified data, and the fact that our data represents at best very small fraction of 1% of the Earth's geological history, it seems wise to do more research and collect more data before we are able to draw any reasonable conclusions about what actions we should take.
If a doctor told me that I had a terminal illness and the only treatment available was going to cost me a million dollars, of course I'd be concerned. But if I found out that the doctor had used faulty equipment and had misinterpreted the test results, AND that he was going to get a sizeable kickback from the cost of my treatment, I would definitely want to get a second opinion.
In many ways, the anthropogenic climate change alarmists sound a lot like the tribal shamans of ancient times. We have angered the gods with our misbehavior, and the only way to prevent catastrophe is to appease the gods with a massive sacrifice which, coincidentally, will enrich the shaman and elevate his status within the tribe.
Forgive me for being skeptical, but when I look at all of the information the only conclusion I can come to is that it is inconclusive.
I may just be a poor misguided fool, a dumb backwoods rube from Fort Myers who moved to Tennessee, an idiot who only listens to my idiot friends, and a Christian conservative who letss my preacher tell me what to think, but that sounds like a pretty open minded point of view to me.
We also think it's wise to ask whether we can do anything about it, whether we should, and what the consequences will be if we do or do not. These are questions that need to be discussed and answered before we make drastic changes to human existence that involve granting massive powers of control through taxation and regulation to governments and trans-governmental bodies.
There are some scientists who can point to evidence showing that human activity is directly responsible for climate change and that the consequences will be catastrophic. There are other scientists, equally as knowledgeable and credible, who believe that human activity has a miniscule impact and they have evidence to back up their conclusions.
When you add in the incorrect data, misinterpreted data, and falsified data, and the fact that our data represents at best very small fraction of 1% of the Earth's geological history, it seems wise to do more research and collect more data before we are able to draw any reasonable conclusions about what actions we should take.
If a doctor told me that I had a terminal illness and the only treatment available was going to cost me a million dollars, of course I'd be concerned. But if I found out that the doctor had used faulty equipment and had misinterpreted the test results, AND that he was going to get a sizeable kickback from the cost of my treatment, I would definitely want to get a second opinion.
In many ways, the anthropogenic climate change alarmists sound a lot like the tribal shamans of ancient times. We have angered the gods with our misbehavior, and the only way to prevent catastrophe is to appease the gods with a massive sacrifice which, coincidentally, will enrich the shaman and elevate his status within the tribe.
Forgive me for being skeptical, but when I look at all of the information the only conclusion I can come to is that it is inconclusive.
I may just be a poor misguided fool, a dumb backwoods rube from Fort Myers who moved to Tennessee, an idiot who only listens to my idiot friends, and a Christian conservative who letss my preacher tell me what to think, but that sounds like a pretty open minded point of view to me.
Leftwit: In the quest to shift mankinds dependency from fossil by promoting and endorsing the use of renewable energy sources....who is being hurt and who is being helped. The only people being negatively impacted by this drive to "clean up our act" so to speak, are those that currently profit off of the existing system.
Why the hell is it acceptable for the American public to heft some of the burden to line the pockets of those currently in charge, and not accept able for the American public to heft some of the burden on a new system that can, will, and is already making life better.
This idea that you, as an individual, will have your rights trampled on or taken away if the world accepts the idea of man driven climate change, is absolutely absurd.
If you really sat done and did a pros and cons list of at least the 3 main possible realities here (no change to renewables, some change to renewables, full change to renewables), you will see an increasing number of pros with the increase in change to renewables
Unable to persist in denigrating Libertarian Friend's intellegence he simply changes the subject by making bald assertions without engaging Libertarian Friend's argument. A conservative friend retorts:
His new argument going nowhere he retreats until provoked by me to see if he adheres to the r/K selection theory, specifically to the notion that leftism often results from narcissism/malfunctioning amygdala:
My intention was to provoke a response that exemplified the malfunctioning amygdala theory the results were pyrotechnic unfocused rage & a complete abandonment of logic.
Conservative Friend: Even google gave up on renewables. By the time you figure the energy we need, the energy and resources to make the solar panels, wind turbines and so on, and what what we will actually get from said renewables, they found it impractical. In fact their conclusions were that the best way forward was nuclear power. I still like solar, hydro and wind. I actually plan on implementing the use of all 3 in time once I get my land in the mountains. The point is that in the bigger picture, it's not practical, at least for now and on a large scale. There are several articles about it out there. This doesn't mean give up on it. It just means were not there yet, unless we go to nuclear.
His new argument going nowhere he retreats until provoked by me to see if he adheres to the r/K selection theory, specifically to the notion that leftism often results from narcissism/malfunctioning amygdala:
Kyussopeth: " btw, does NASA fiddle with temperature data? " the lulz, top keks bro, here I'll do the work for you try a web site called google before saying something stupid in the future. https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&site=&source=hp... / It all makes sense once you get through the leftist rabbit thinking. Gun Control means "Help I'm afraid of blacks! Won't someone disarm them!" Global Warming/Climate Change means "I got mine so the rest of you negroes can starve." Comprehensive Immigration Reform means "Blacks are too scary lets bring in Mexicans to keep white southerners out of power." Trolling means "Silence that man for pointing out that progressivism is built on a series of convenient lies." Progressivism is a symptom of a low functioning amygdala.
My intention was to provoke a response that exemplified the malfunctioning amygdala theory the results were pyrotechnic unfocused rage & a complete abandonment of logic.
Leftwit: this fool here is a real troll. Too this fool doesn't know what an amygdala does
And he was born in Fort Myers and lives in Montana. Omg that's rich. From dumb to dumber. I wonder if he's got any religious rhetoric to throw out to help complete the picture of an imbecile
I can see now what is happening to you ####. You are surrounded by idiots and they are influencing you unknowinglyI don't expect you to understand at all ****, you've already proven your limitations.
Stupid people congregate
**** here is one of those fools that judges his friends and colleagues by a different scale than those that aren't. Pretty sure the Bible mentions how dumb that is a couple of times.
Exactly my point ####. These aren't rebuttals and if you weren't so heavily influenced by morons you'd see that. I'm just trolling the low hanging fruit. (ed- yeah he's the one trolling now he can't be the weak victim his amygdala demands he reassert his place in the group)
Assumptions? So show me were you call out Montana man (ed- i. e. me) for his attack, weak as it may be.
So just because YOU want to now have a reasonable debate, I'm supposed to stop everything and conform to your desire? Who said I was trying to debate (ed- No shit you weren't debating)? With every comment you prove how authoritarian you are ####. You freedom hating backwoods baffoon. (ed- I'm the victim protect me! protect me!)
Leftwit: I'm going to leave you fools to wallow in your stupidity. Just know that I don't blame you for not understanding me and being dumb. You only know what you know and it's clear you're not really interested in expanding. Go take a few science classes, maybe demonstrate your ability to juggle large and complex datasets, and maybe you will be worth listening to. Until then, enjoy the peanut gallery.
How well does he conform to the r/K selection model? Is he a narcissist? I'll leave it with Anonymous Conservative's assessment:
Narcissists operate by different rules – to the point that they are, on one level, baffled by your humanity, and on another, amused by its illogical nature – but it is more than that. They are damaged, in a way that they become panicked if they do not do certain things – regardless of whether those things are logical. So they are driven to hurt others by an envy which will destroy them if they do not yield to its whim. Then they see normal people, not so driven, and tell themselves that they are not damaged, but rather the other people are stupid to not try to advance their own position by screwing others.
No comments:
Post a Comment