Further exchange with Tic. First, his latest post, full quote (all cited below in my response):
***
I can look up dictionary terms too. Terrorism - the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. Those commercials say that unless we do something the worst will happen. It uses fear and the threat of death to coerce public opinion.
You might be trying to argue just the "science" but its clear from the sources you produce that its not the end game. First you must convince everyone so then we can do something about it. You just have to look at the last sentence of the Scientific American article you provided and i in fact read. "But then again, responsible action on climate change is what the contrarians seem most interest in denying." This article is obviously calling for action. Also claim 6's counter argument was weak. They only looked at federal spending, private spending and funding was not included. And then they ended with a conspiracy joke, which was in poor taste. Is it that hard to believe that rich people conspire to fuck people and steal their shit? Operation CoIntelPro documented the assassination of US citizens in their homes by police officers in coordination with the FBI. (Prolly fake according to you).
You didn't get my eugenics point at all. Probably because you have already made up your mind about what is real there too. Eugenics said they had scientific evidence to show that the Arian race was superior to others and even devised test to find out what race people were. Then used these guidelines to tell certain people they shouldn't reproduce because it's not in the best interest of the country.
You can say that PR campaigns are irrelevant but they are not. Anyone who knows anything about public opinion would know they are not irrelevant. You can say that their not terrorism but i'm pretty sure it is by definition.
I've offered to discuss topics in person and you were uninterested and now I'm done wasting my time with you. One day you will wake up and I hope see the truth.
My response, line by line:
***
I can look up dictionary terms too.
Then you ought to do that before you use terms in argument that you clearly don't understand. Your comment about DNA disproving eugenics reveals you don't know what eugenics, don't know what DNA is, or very possibly, both.
And what in the name of all that is precious and holy, does eugenics have to do with climatology? Nothing. You are foolishly regurgitating an idiotic, creationist complaint about science, based upon a moral issue that has nothing whatsoever to do with science. But you don't even understand this argument that you can't even begin to get off of the ground.
Terrorism - the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. Those commercials say that unless we do something the worst will happen. It uses fear and the threat of death to coerce public opinion.
Why should anyone give a flip what some political interest hired an ad agency to put in a commercial? Who did it? We don't know. Was it aired? We don't know. Where was it aired? We don't know. Does it have anything to do with our understanding of climatology? No. You don't want to talk about the science,
because the science KICKS YOUR ASS.
You might be trying to argue just the "science" but its clear from the sources you produce that its not the end game.
My sources, refer to the science. Your unsupported and irrelevant charge of an "end game" is entirely irrelevant to the science. You don't want to talk about the science, because all of it is against you. What politicians and ad agencies do, has nothing to do with the science of climatology and what is, or is not happening to our climate.
First you must convince everyone so then we can do something about it.
Mere assertion, pulled from your ass. Refer to the science, or admit you cannot. Oh, my mistake,
you've already done that. And I quote: "i(sic) have no wish to argue science with you."
Science is the tool we use to make observations about the world around us. Assertions regarding climate, and observations about climate, are necessarily
scientific in nature. That you are reduced to running from discussing the science (while tapping away on your scientific computer), means you forfeit anything of substance on this issue regarding climatology. Now we are just mining the depth of your ignorance on these other issues. Continue.
You just have to look at the last sentence of the Scientific American article you provided and i in fact read. "But then again, responsible action on climate change is what the contrarians seem most interest in denying." This article is obviously calling for action."
That's nice. I refer you to an article that covers seven of the main crackpot assertions on your side of the debate, and you are reduced to complaining that, after the fellow makes his case, he adds his opinion with the one sentence above (which is obviously true anyway). Is that the best you've got?
Also claim 6's counter argument was weak.
Excellent. Finally a charge of substance! Let's see you provide cogent rebuttal and make your case that claim #6 is in fact weak.
They only looked at federal spending, private spending and funding was not included.
Show this. Private spending on what? WTF are you talking about? And note, this objection you raise, without support, has nothing to do with science. It's politics.
And then they ended with a conspiracy joke, which was in poor taste.
No joke aimed at conspiracy dolts, can be too lacking in taste. Conspiracy theorists deserve every bit of derision and ridicule they receive, and a whole lot more.
Case in point...
Is it that hard to believe that rich people conspire to fuck people and steal their shit? Operation CoIntelPro documented the assassination of US citizens in their homes by police officers in coordination with the FBI. (Prolly fake according to you).
No. Not "probably."
You didn't get my eugenics point at all.
No, I got it bigtime. You don't even grasp the questions you regurgitate from the idiotic sources you get them from. Eugenics obviously has nothing to do with climate science. You bring up this canard because you have swallowed some stupid (in this case creationist) fallacy that goes like this:
a) Eugenics is scientific
b) Eugenics can be used (and was by the Nazis specifically) to do immoral things we don't approve of
c) therefore: science is bad.
It's a breathtakingly stupefying and idiotic non-sequiter popularized by the completely dishonest flick "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" and you fell for it hook line and sinker. You did this because you didn't do your intellectual homework and see if the claim makes any sense whatsoever. It doesn't. Now this would be fine and dandy of you were a youngster who was just inquiring, and asking questions. Glad to help. But no, you have that unfortunate combination of ignorance and arrogance that goes with one who gets their science from youtube, PR commercials and rightwing talking air heads on cable news. You ape the confidence and swagger from them and then regurgitate it like a parrot, In doing so you reveal you don't have the skill set, knowledge base, or intellectual horsepower to even understand the questions you raise.
Probably because you have already made up your mind about what is real there too. Eugenics said they had scientific evidence to show that the Arian race was superior to others and even devised test to find out what race people were. Then used these guidelines to tell certain people they shouldn't reproduce because it's not in the best interest of the country.
Again, grasshopper, the problems with eugenics are moral in nature. Selective breeding has been practiced by humans, successfully for
thousands of years. You are surrounded by lifeforms that have been profoundly modified by using this process of selective breeding. We don't approve of doing it with humans, not because it doesn't work, but because it is morally repugnant.
You may be able to pass along these silly arguments you don't understand with your friends and fool them. But you aren't fooling me. I don't know how old you are but your reasoning skills are at about the level mine were at age 15. That was 1981, 30 years ago. It's fine to not know things, but not fine to pretend you do, when you don't.
You can say that PR campaigns are irrelevant but they are not. Anyone who knows anything about public opinion would know they are not irrelevant. You can say that their not terrorism but i'm pretty sure it is by definition.
Completely, 100% irrelevant to the science. And on the objective statements of fact regarding climatology, the science is all that matters. Since you can't speak rationally about this climate issue, let me use a different example to demonstrate this:
In the 1980's, the science, via direct observation and measurement, told us we had an acid rain problem. You can read about this
here. Our coal plants were putting out vast amounts of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, and it was killing thousands of lakes and of course, the life they contained. Of course industry didn't want further regulation on this matter, and the whore politicians on the wingnut right were pleased to abide them, for as long as they could. So we had the same bullshit, unscientific PR campaigns we have seen with tobacco health issues, and now climate change. And surely at the time, we had extremists on the left that were exaggerating the problem.
That is completely irrelevant to the science, which showed we had a problem and needed to address the problem (if we like to fish in those lakes). The science deniers lost, again, as in the past and as they will in the future. Science doesn't care about the whore politicians or the ninnies running PR campaigns or the stupid canards you learned on youtube or
Fox News. The reality of the situtation, as best understood by the most powerful tool of discernment we've ever had, said this was the reality. After much delay, we then went on to fix the problem through regulation, pollution control, and science. We regulated the sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions more strictly, reduced the pollution output, banned leaded gas, improved automobile pollution control, and fixed the problem. And we did this with the greed based, rightwing, anti-science shitheads being dragged kicking and screaming along the way.
We have a similar situation today, with the same greed driven, rightwing, anti-science shit-heads peddling their ignorant science denial. Except this time it isn't just the lakes and the quality of our air in question, it is the climate of the entire planet.
I've offered to discuss topics in person and you were uninterested and now I'm done wasting my time with you.
Look, grasshopper, I don't know what your skill set lets you charge per hour, but each of my hours are worth $100. Every hour of every business day that I choose to work, that's what I charge. And I turn at least 20% of my business away. If you were an inquisitive young person interested in learning something, I think I have shown, via several hours invested, both in one on one private messages on Facebook, and on posts both here and on your thread, that I am quite accommodating to teach you how to begin on these issues, to the degree you have an interest to learn. If I am going to take time to give you private instruction on these basics, you need to show enough interest, with a dash of humility, to make it worth my time. You have not shown this. In addition to what I have stated above, you rarely answer questions, you don't respond to points, your responses are almost completely non-responsive to points made. You just ignore your errors and move on to making more of them.
Instead, it has been a nonstop parade of canards and stupidity from you, and, Brian excluded, your associates. It may be that someone has been wasting their time, but it hasn't been you.
All of the learning in these exchanges has been one way. I have not learned one thing from you, because as you have shown from the beginning, you don't know your bum from your elbow on this issue. And worse, you don't have the basic critical thinking skills to even know how to begin the search for those body parts. And that would be perfectly fine. You're young and inexperienced, you don't know much. But your ignorance, as you have learned to parrot from the usual sources, includes a good dose of arrogance and stupidity on top. This is why you don't learn new things. You think you know things, and you pretend to know things, that you clearly don't know. And then to further compound the problem, you look to sources like commercials on youtube, to learn more about an issue.
This is why I am taking the time to make an example out of you.
One day you will wake up and I hope see the truth.
In the processes of determining what is "the truth" versus, not "the truth," it is best to follow the evidence, as objectively as possible and then have the courage to accept what that evidence tells us. You don't want to talk about the science, because all of the science is against your opinion. That you are reduced to not talking about the science, on an issue that is entirely scientific in nature, reveals that you are an intellectual coward, afraid to accept what the evidence reveals.
I hate intellectual cowardice, but it's very common. You have lots of company.
PS. Speaking of intellectual cowardice and stupidity,... I will be posting below, unabridged, in a separate post, the 13 spam comments posted by your Facebook friends between 10:03 and 11:11 last Saturday morning. This is so readers can see in it's full banjo playing glory, what southern redneck hillbilly idiocy looks like when it rears it's ignorant head. Now we know why the south shall indeed not "rise again." Too many idiots.