Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
Translations From The Paleoconservative
While rational thinkers ...
When denialists ...
... engage AGWists in long, heated debates over whether particulate matter in an ice core suggests 1 or 3+/- C warmer conditions 120,000 years ago, and allow AGWists to assert that behaviors certain animals have always engaged in are now evidence of anthropogenic global warming, or arguing what a two centimeter rise in sea level as opposed to a four centimeter rise will do to civilization
... engage their opponents in debates on scientific questions ...
... AGWists are having a good laugh.
Rational thinkers should be, well, rational. Why have they so easily and entirely given up the high ground time and time again? Why have they permitted their irrational, dangerous opponents to outflank them with this same maneuver again and again?
... they always get their butts kicked ...
Rational thinkers behave like retarded sheep.
... and behave like retarded sheep.
The AGWist formula is quite simple: The AGWist begins his or her argument and bases everything after that in the straw man assertion that disagreement with AGW is tacitly stating that climate is static. From here AGW argues with the further logical fallacies of guilt by association and the vested interest fallacy that lump all rationalist thinkers on this issue in with political conservatives working to preserve the profits of “Big Oil” and with religious views that hold to the “young earth” belief. So any rational thinker enters the debate identified (and permitting that identification) as a religious nutcase who believes the earth is only 6,000 years old, who is a tool of “Big Oil,” and who believes that climate does not change.
Instead they should drool out halfwitted lies about their opponents' views ...
Why expend weeks of your time and tens of thousands of words arguing with an AGWist over particulate counts in ice cores, walrus stampedes in the Arctic or emission standards in cars when their entire argument is built on fallacies?
... and then debate against their own stupid strawmen instead of the actual views of their opponents or any question actually relating to AGW.
Today, AGW counts on rational thinkers to either remain silent in abject fear ...
They should make themselves ridiculous with abject paranoia ...
... dissent-silencing fear ...
... complain about being "silenced" at the very tops of their voices, incessantly ...
Anthropogenic Global Warming’s (AGW) closest ancestor is the political correctness movement ...
... whine about "political correctness" while reciting every shibboleth of their own chosen political group ...
... threatening the economic health of entire nations ... entire nations are poised to impoverish themselves ... working to erode Western civilization
... make unevidenced predections of catastrophe befalling Western civilization if their opponents' voices are heard ...
... shrill, hysterical and demanding ...
... while calling their opponents "shrill" and "hysterical" in the same sentence, just for added irony.
Primary to the argument that the planet is undergoing a period of marked, global rise in mean temperature is the “consensus” view that human industrial activity is the cause.
While ignoring the scientific consensus, and producing no scientific debate ...
those opposed to rationality, reason, and science, those working to erode Western civilization
... they should substitute paranoid and dishonest personal attacks on their opponents ...
Zealous proponents within this movement, one that bears all the major hallmarks of a religion, have (unlike their opponents) clearly not ignored the lessons of the PC and ID movements.
... such as comparing their opponents to creationists ...
And while certainly some of those who “deny” global warming do so for religious reasons ...
... (unless of course like so many denialists, they happen to be creationists, in which case I guess they should compare them to Godless Darwinianismist Evil-utionists) ...
Couple this with the classic Freudian projection used by AGW, wherein one claims that some other demonstrates a personality trait or engages in actions that the claimant him or herself actually demonstrates (in it’s more radical presentations, this is a typical to schizoid behaviors)
... and having adopted creationist tactics to the letter while pretending that their opponents are like creationists, insinuate that anyone who notices this absurdity is mentally ill.
one that bears all the major hallmarks of a religion
Just in case anyone's missed how AGW denialism is based on creationist tactics, denialists should follow this up by calling the current scientific consensus a "religion", that always gets a laugh when creationists do it ...
They use all of the dissent-silencing fear of PC while fully engaging the irrationality and generally ignorance of advanced science used by ID.
... as does ignoring the scientific consensus and ducking the scientific issues while accusing your opponents of being ignorant of science.
Above all ...
Rational Thinkers vs. Anthropogenic Global Warmingists.
Why Rational Thinkers Have (Again) Failed
<snip>
Tokie
... above all, aspirant denialists should remember lesson one. They should never, ever, ever even try to put up any sort of scientific argument against AGW. That's just asking for a big bag of fail.
Of course, attempting to substitute hysteria, paranoia, lies, gibberish and temper tantrums for scientific debate is also asking for failure, not to mention ridicule and contempt, but it requires less intellectual effort then trying to understand science.
While rational thinkers ...
When denialists ...
... engage AGWists in long, heated debates over whether particulate matter in an ice core suggests 1 or 3+/- C warmer conditions 120,000 years ago, and allow AGWists to assert that behaviors certain animals have always engaged in are now evidence of anthropogenic global warming, or arguing what a two centimeter rise in sea level as opposed to a four centimeter rise will do to civilization
... engage their opponents in debates on scientific questions ...
... AGWists are having a good laugh.
Rational thinkers should be, well, rational. Why have they so easily and entirely given up the high ground time and time again? Why have they permitted their irrational, dangerous opponents to outflank them with this same maneuver again and again?
... they always get their butts kicked ...
Rational thinkers behave like retarded sheep.
... and behave like retarded sheep.
The AGWist formula is quite simple: The AGWist begins his or her argument and bases everything after that in the straw man assertion that disagreement with AGW is tacitly stating that climate is static. From here AGW argues with the further logical fallacies of guilt by association and the vested interest fallacy that lump all rationalist thinkers on this issue in with political conservatives working to preserve the profits of “Big Oil” and with religious views that hold to the “young earth” belief. So any rational thinker enters the debate identified (and permitting that identification) as a religious nutcase who believes the earth is only 6,000 years old, who is a tool of “Big Oil,” and who believes that climate does not change.
Instead they should drool out halfwitted lies about their opponents' views ...
Why expend weeks of your time and tens of thousands of words arguing with an AGWist over particulate counts in ice cores, walrus stampedes in the Arctic or emission standards in cars when their entire argument is built on fallacies?
... and then debate against their own stupid strawmen instead of the actual views of their opponents or any question actually relating to AGW.
Today, AGW counts on rational thinkers to either remain silent in abject fear ...
They should make themselves ridiculous with abject paranoia ...
... dissent-silencing fear ...
... complain about being "silenced" at the very tops of their voices, incessantly ...
Anthropogenic Global Warming’s (AGW) closest ancestor is the political correctness movement ...
... whine about "political correctness" while reciting every shibboleth of their own chosen political group ...
... threatening the economic health of entire nations ... entire nations are poised to impoverish themselves ... working to erode Western civilization
... make unevidenced predections of catastrophe befalling Western civilization if their opponents' voices are heard ...
... shrill, hysterical and demanding ...
... while calling their opponents "shrill" and "hysterical" in the same sentence, just for added irony.
Primary to the argument that the planet is undergoing a period of marked, global rise in mean temperature is the “consensus” view that human industrial activity is the cause.
While ignoring the scientific consensus, and producing no scientific debate ...
those opposed to rationality, reason, and science, those working to erode Western civilization
... they should substitute paranoid and dishonest personal attacks on their opponents ...
Zealous proponents within this movement, one that bears all the major hallmarks of a religion, have (unlike their opponents) clearly not ignored the lessons of the PC and ID movements.
... such as comparing their opponents to creationists ...
And while certainly some of those who “deny” global warming do so for religious reasons ...
... (unless of course like so many denialists, they happen to be creationists, in which case I guess they should compare them to Godless Darwinianismist Evil-utionists) ...
Couple this with the classic Freudian projection used by AGW, wherein one claims that some other demonstrates a personality trait or engages in actions that the claimant him or herself actually demonstrates (in it’s more radical presentations, this is a typical to schizoid behaviors)
... and having adopted creationist tactics to the letter while pretending that their opponents are like creationists, insinuate that anyone who notices this absurdity is mentally ill.
one that bears all the major hallmarks of a religion
Just in case anyone's missed how AGW denialism is based on creationist tactics, denialists should follow this up by calling the current scientific consensus a "religion", that always gets a laugh when creationists do it ...
They use all of the dissent-silencing fear of PC while fully engaging the irrationality and generally ignorance of advanced science used by ID.
... as does ignoring the scientific consensus and ducking the scientific issues while accusing your opponents of being ignorant of science.
Above all ...
Rational Thinkers vs. Anthropogenic Global Warmingists.
Why Rational Thinkers Have (Again) Failed
<snip>
Tokie
... above all, aspirant denialists should remember lesson one. They should never, ever, ever even try to put up any sort of scientific argument against AGW. That's just asking for a big bag of fail.
Of course, attempting to substitute hysteria, paranoia, lies, gibberish and temper tantrums for scientific debate is also asking for failure, not to mention ridicule and contempt, but it requires less intellectual effort then trying to understand science.
Last edited:
