Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Your logic is as warped as...your arguments. I guess that's a tautology.
Anyway, as Obama would say:
No no no no no! What I said was...
I said you were defending your icon, the little manmade global warming statue on your nightstand.
One who defends icons is not an iconoclast. I was the one "clasting" your little icon and you started calling me a liar for disagreeing with you, you big fat jerk!
No, wait, Obama wouldn't say that. Forget the last part. I don't know if you are fat or not...
Hi, Raul with Mustard,
Who made you the Judge of Truth? I suspect you would not recognize a benthic bacteria if you saw one...
Before industrialization, the amount of co2 in the atmosphere was about 280 parts per million, or PPM. Today, it is 360PPM, nearly a 33% increase, and is not attributable to volcanic activity, or an organic source. Those who call our contribution minuscule are plain liars, nothing more. If they are not, I suggest they propose an alternate source of nearly a third increase of CO2 in the last 100 years, during which volcanoes were quite well documented, that fits the available facts.
I didn't make up the elephant and mouse analogy used earlier, and I didn't specifically call you a liar in that paragraph. I said that if you spread that particular lie, you're a liar, and that's what started this whole mess.
On the other hand.
The Heartland Institute, and CO2Science.org, are professional liars. Likewise, if you spread the lies of professional liars, you are a liar yourself. It's a statement of fact, not a judgment call. I'm sure you really believe it yourself, but that doesn't alter the equation.
You also called Environment and Climate News a reputable science publication, which is a lie, and when called out you dropped the subject.
I thought you had passed away or were in the home.
Why?
Because neither the right now the left really can tolerate someone who doesn't completely and utterly follow the given line of the day.
The left attacked Palin because that was what was expected. Not rational or critical attacks, but petty family attacks, such as questioning parentage.
The right is certainly no better in this regard.
Neither extreme can really stand to see reasoned arguments, because reason has long since given way to snarling.
I don't actually agree with Camille on a number of issue, but I always read her column, because whether she's making me mad, or I agree with most of her column, she always makes me think. Her column is always well reasoned, and even when I disagree, I can see how she logically arrived at her position.
I like to be challenged, and Camille is one of the few writers today who will bother doing so.
call me a skeptic
I'll address a lie from the Heartland Institute. It is a lie of both omission (for leaving out relevant facts), and commission (for misrepresenting the science). The so-called scientific article doesn't even qualify as an abstract. I'd like to see the actual paper, if they are making that claim in earnest.
It is true that spikes in CO2 levels have sometimes followed after a warming spike.
Even a casual examination of their own charts reveals that, before all of the biggest warming spikes, there was a preceding large spike in CO2 levels first. You can see for yourself, for each big blue spike, there was a red one that came just before.
The climatologists would never claim that CO2 spikes never follow warming spikes. The claim is that large spikes often are preceded by abnormal CO2 levels, and that this starts a chain reaction, warming the entire planet in a short time.
This theory was controversial at one time even in the scientific community, but is now gaining acceptance as the best explanation for mass extinction events, and large degrees of turmoil on Planet Earth. The Heartland Institute offers no competing theory or evidence of their own.
I like the ocean where it is. Call me chicken little, but with your attitude, I'd suggest you build a boat.
By the way, whatever the definition of my name means, one thing it definitely means is that you don't get to define it. Cheers.
1) What started this was your despicable behavior toward someone who simply disagrees and who presents facts and logic to substantiate his positions. That the Nature and Science and other articles which document my position were posted on websites which, on no basis I can see other than that you disagree with them, you choose to disregard, tends to make discussing science with you impossible.
2) Your exhibited impulse to call people who disagree with you liars without any evidence that it is so is a problem, too.
3) A liar is someone who deliberately issues falsehoods knowing them to be false at the time. That I disagree with you and that I chip your favorite icon does not make me a liar, nor does it make the people at CO2 or Heartland liars either. I know I believe what I say and I suspect they do too. It is a vile tendency of the left to call those who disagree with them liars. I resent it. It is a serious charge. I take my credibility and reputation quite seriously.
4) What is evident is that you choose to cling to your beliefs with a religious fervor and get hostile when challenged, which sounds more like a fervent accolyte than an iconoclast.
We report, the reader can decide.
If someone says, "The Earth is Flat," and you believe him, and tell other people, you're still a liar, you're just an honest liar.
I'm willing to accept that you are honestly and earnestly spreading lies that you believe. It's a distinction you don't seem to get.
The words are necessary because the icecaps melting will be a big deal. We need to dispense with lies about the science, right now, and I won't stop saying it.
Cavindude said -
"stuttering Bugs Bunny"
That is were I stopped reading. How can a person get this wrong?
-100 DKP
Porky Pig stutters.
####
If she meant Porky Pig, she could have said stuttering like Porky Pig. But the way it's phrased, it could work - a Bugs Bunny (i.e., somebody with big ears) but who stutters.
(Ah, yes, Matty D. that time of the month again...)
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
