Global Warming News! It's REAL!!!

[JoeEllison]

Tokenconservative is just here to help prove that my idea about global warming denialists and creationists are cut from identical cloth. He's been so very, very helpful!

 

[a_unique_person]

Made what claim?

That AGW has something to do with leftist politics.

 

[Alkatran]

No, actually, I don't.

You see, the AGWist perspective is a lockstep one. One AGWer is pretty much like any other AGWer. In for a penny, in for a pound...or you can't be in at all.

See, on the other side, despite your (collective) strawman assertions, we can agree that yes, it might be getting warmer and that yes, human activity MAY have some exacerbating impact there.

On YOUR side you MUST believe (key term) that it IS getting not just "warmer" but that temps are rocketing upward globally at a dangerous pace that will turn the planet into a superheated deathball w/in a century and that the SOLE cause of this is human (mostly American) industrial activity.

See the difference, now?

So, when you make a point within the strictured confines of your belief structures, they are part n' parcel of ALL this (your) mythology, and so I can "attack" you for holding this particular religious view. It's no different from my saying to a Catholic: you are wrong, Jesus did not walk on water, or to a Baptist: you are wrong, Jesus did not walk on water.

The core belief in the mythological substructure remains the same, regardless of whether you are catholic about it, or practice some slightly Protestant genre of the faith.

Tokie

Except you are assigning beliefs to me that I don't have. You might as well tell Baptists that thinking Jesus couldn't fly by flapping his arms, and then start yelling incoherently when they ask why the hell you would bring something unrelated like that up.

I'd never heard about the frogs. I don't think global warming is going to turn the earth into a massive ball of fire. I don't walk in lockstep.

Stop arguing with imagined adversaries and argue with the people actually talking to you. Argue with the points they make, not the points you assign to them. Right now, you come off as a ranting troll.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

{snip troll blather}
By the way, if I started a post by calling YOU a "rube" you'd be whining to the mods (and they'd be sending me a warning) before the electrons on this page were dry.

There's a report function on every post rube. Either use it or quite bitching about the caprice of moderation around here.

 

[varwoche]

You see, the AGWist perspective is a lockstep one. One AGWer is pretty much like any other AGWer. In for a penny, in for a pound...or you can't be in at all.

What someone posted to another GW thread applies here in spades:

If one were to create a sock puppet for the purpose of discrediting a/gw skepticism, one would have to be truly audacious to write something as starkly ludicrous as this rare gem, posted to a skeptical forum no less.

 

[fuelair]

The data seem to indicate it is far more scientific than political. Numbers on a thermometer don't have political bias.

That might depend - are they left of the center, right of the center or right on the centerline? Gotta watch those godless, leftie commie dupes and symps !!!!! Do you know which side your thermometer is on? Don't be in the dark - or we all will be in the REDs!!!!!!

 

[Tokenconservative]

Tokenconservative is just here to help prove that my idea about global warming denialists and creationists are cut from identical cloth. He's been so very, very helpful!

Uh, wow...if there was some sort of award for leftist projection, you'd get it.

Um...I guess you don't understand how this works, so let me 'splain it, Lucy!

AGWism is a religion, not the very rational demand that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and not simply "I believe!!!"

Just because AGWists call rational thinkers "Denialists" does not mean that that's what they are, any more than race seperatists are "rightwingers," because the left-advocacy media has decided that's what they are.

But thanks for playing!

Now pick our home version on your way out.

Tokie

 

[Tokenconservative]

That AGW has something to do with leftist politics.

The movement has everything to do with leftist politics.

Who said it didn't?

Tokie

 

[Tokenconservative]

Except you are assigning beliefs to me that I don't have. You might as well tell Baptists that thinking Jesus couldn't fly by flapping his arms, and then start yelling incoherently when they ask why the hell you would bring something unrelated like that up.

I'd never heard about the frogs. I don't think global warming is going to turn the earth into a massive ball of fire. I don't walk in lockstep.

Stop arguing with imagined adversaries and argue with the people actually talking to you. Argue with the points they make, not the points you assign to them. Right now, you come off as a ranting troll.

Ah...so because YOU have never heard about A, or B, or C, that means that your fellow lockstep AGWists have not said a thing about it...I see.

What about the 2005 hurricane season then, 'member that? Remember how your fellow travelers were shrieking that this, the "worst hurricane season on record!!" was harbinger of bad things to come, and that we'd better get used to things like NOLA, because they'd be a yearly event as Global Warming (actually, salt content in the ocean accounts for hurricane severity and frequency) heated the ocean and cause more and biggerer hurricanes every year until Bush signs Kyoto!!!!

No? Of course you don't remember that, either.

Or how about the heat wave in France a few years ago and how the French had better get used to it because it was going to be like that until Bush signs Kyoto!!!

Not that one either, huh?

Well, that's because you are an agressively ignorant AGWist with blinders lag-bolted to the sides of your head.

Tokie

 

[Tokenconservative]

There's a report function on every post rube. Either use it or quite bitching about the caprice of moderation around here.

Is that an order?

I don't report people. But even if I did, I am hearing from others that "moderation" in this forum is so pro-AGW that it would not matter if I did...

Tokie

 

[Tokenconservative]

What someone posted to another GW thread applies here in spades:

Sorry...I don't follow.

What's a "sock puppet"?

Tokie

 

[Tokenconservative]

That might depend - are they left of the center, right of the center or right on the centerline? Gotta watch those godless, leftie commie dupes and symps !!!!! Do you know which side your thermometer is on? Don't be in the dark - or we all will be in the REDs!!!!!!

Heh, heh..that's funny.

Of course, you wouldn't want to be say, a geologist or climatologist at a US or old Europe uni and put in for a grant to look into your hypothesis that something inconsequential like say, oh, I dunno...the sun might play a role in global climate conditions, and might play a larger role than human activity.

Not, at least if you want to eat next year.

Tokie

 

[Doubt]

Threads like this one do nothing but discredit the person who starts them.

I do know that global warming is real. I do not know what percentage, if any, is AGW.

Unfortunately, this sort of thread does nothing to inform anyone of anything. We have here a person starting a thread for political reasons using a strawman so weak that it knocks it self over. In the mean time, it ends up as more political chaff that makes it that harder to search for real information.

The only positive aspect is that it exposes the bias of the tread starter. In the process of doing so it damages his credibility and, unfortunately, makes those who may have real doubts about AGW look like fools if their arguments are in any way (most likely unintentionally) linked to his.

What we have here is a bunch of sound and furry signifying nothing.

If the thread starter wishes to make an argument that could convince those of us that are undecided on the issue, he had best start over again with his thinking process. The end result of the current effort is the rejection of arguments leading to a complete loss of the ability to influence the position of other people.

The bottom line: Tokie's arguments make him look like a shill for pro-AGW arguments.

 

[Tokenconservative]

Threads like this one do nothing but discredit the person who starts them.

I do know that global warming is real. I do not know what percentage, if any, is AGW.

Unfortunately, this sort of thread does nothing to inform anyone of anything. We have here a person starting a thread for political reasons using a strawman so weak that it knocks it self over. In the mean time, it ends up as more political chaff that makes it that harder to search for real information.

The only positive aspect is that it exposes the bias of the tread starter. In the process of doing so it damages his credibility and, unfortunately, makes those who may have real doubts about AGW look like fools if their arguments are in any way (most likely unintentionally) linked to his.

What we have here is a bunch of sound and furry signifying nothing.

If the thread starter wishes to make an argument that could convince those of us that are undecided on the issue, he had best start over again with his thinking process. The end result of the current effort is the rejection of arguments leading to a complete loss of the ability to influence the position of other people.

The bottom line: Tokie's arguments make him look like a shill for pro-AGW arguments.

Yeah, well...what can I say....

I gave up engaging the shrill zealots of leftist ideologies (that includes AGW) long, long ago. I haven't run into a rational one in over 7 years, so what's the point?

What I see of threads that are more "rational" in your view is the rational folks presenting post after post after post after post of rational arguments, links, references to research, bright, articulat refutations of everything the AGWists have to say, followed by howling, shrieking, hysterical, politicized fearmongering on the part of the AGWists whose religion all those facts 'n figgers are "attacking," always--ALWAYs--routinely starting with the projective strawman that "deniers" believe climate is static, and ending with the wooish, anti-logical shrieking rant that anyone who argues against AGW is a tool-TOOOOOLLLLL!!!--of big oil.

Surely you've noticed that trend?

If you have, I ask: what's the point of repeating the rational arguments over and over and over and over to such an audience? It's like being a phycisist and going to your 3rd grader's Career Day class and talking to them about Chaos Theory.

It may be good exercise for your lips, but otherwise what's the point?

Tokie

 

[Doubt]

I gave up engaging the shrill zealots of leftist ideologies (that includes AGW) long, long ago. I haven't run into a rational one in over 7 years, so what's the point?

The existence of this thread suggests that the opposite is true. You are engaging those who oppose your position. But your actions make their case for them in the end.

What I see of threads that are more "rational" in your view is the rational folks presenting post after post after post after post of rational arguments, links, references to research, bright, articulat refutations of everything the AGWists have to say, followed by howling, shrieking, hysterical, politicized fearmongering on the part of the AGWists whose religion all those facts 'n figgers are "attacking," always--ALWAYs--routinely starting with the projective strawman that "deniers" believe climate is static, and ending with the wooish, anti-logical shrieking rant that anyone who argues against AGW is a tool-TOOOOOLLLLL!!!--of big oil.

Surely you've noticed that trend?

I have notices a great deal of polticaly minded information on the subject from both sides. And there are "Tools" on both sides of the issue. Please present an example of what you consider a good argument against AGW.

If you have, I ask: what's the point of repeating the rational arguments over and over and over and over to such an audience? It's like being a phycisist and going to your 3rd grader's Career Day class and talking to them about Chaos Theory.

It may be good exercise for your lips, but otherwise what's the point?

Tokie

The point of repeating good arguments is that they can convince those who's opinions are not yet set in stone. Reciting bad arguments, which is what you are doing here, pushes people in the opposite direction of what you intend.

 

[a_unique_person]

The movement has everything to do with leftist politics.

Who said it didn't?

Tokie

You have to demonstrate that it does, it's your claim.

 

[Alkatran]

Ah...so because YOU have never heard about A, or B, or C, that means that your fellow lockstep AGWists have not said a thing about it...I see.

What about the 2005 hurricane season then, 'member that? Remember how your fellow travelers were shrieking that this, the "worst hurricane season on record!!" was harbinger of bad things to come, and that we'd better get used to things like NOLA, because they'd be a yearly event as Global Warming (actually, salt content in the ocean accounts for hurricane severity and frequency) heated the ocean and cause more and biggerer hurricanes every year until Bush signs Kyoto!!!!

No? Of course you don't remember that, either.

Or how about the heat wave in France a few years ago and how the French had better get used to it because it was going to be like that until Bush signs Kyoto!!!

Not that one either, huh?

Well, that's because you are an agressively ignorant AGWist with blinders lag-bolted to the sides of your head.

Tokie

I didn't say I speak for "AGWists". I speak for me. Stop assigning me beliefs I haven't said I have.

 

[CapelDodger]

Let me see if I understand your POV:

Not much chance of that.

When the Pentagon studies the military implications of global warming from A-Z, that's scientific, right?

I specifically used the word rational. Naturally a rational view is engaged not just with the the cirumstances that science predicts (however hedged they might be) but also with the political responses one can expect. War is, of course, a political response, but one amongst many. Many wars will have no impact on the US, and that's what the Pentagon is focused on. Its remit, so to speak.

But when the Pentago is engaging in strategy for the war in Iraq, that's political.

That's where the chance went away. This is were you're making up my point of view. Always a barrier to understanding, that. I've made no mention of Iraq, nor am I being in any way disparaging to the Pentagon. Far from it. There are bigger brains at work in the Pentagon than there are in, say, the White House.

And ne'er the twain shall meet?

There was only ever one; the Pentagon's analysis of AGW. I'm an analyst myself, and I can't fault it. The other thing exists only in your fevered imagination.

Hmmm

Tokie

Just keep putting your name at top and tail. Heaven forfend anybody forget who's shooting this stuff.

 

[CapelDodger]

I didn't say I speak for "AGWists". I speak for me. Stop assigning me beliefs I haven't said I have.

Tell me about it .

I'm not yet convinced that TC isn't a crude parody of an 'Murrican Conservative. A "troll", as I understand the term, or perhaps even a Tar-Baby.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Is that an order?

No, corned beef on rye is an order. It's more like advice.

I don't report people. But even if I did, I am hearing from others that "moderation" in this forum is so pro-AGW that it would not matter if I did...

Pro-AGW? Who are you hearing that from, the voices in your head?