Playing to the ignorant or actually that ignorant?

[FarmallMTA]

Funny. Observing leftists congratulate and stroke each other for 5 pages is like listening to one hand clap. Very amusing agreement from an utterly idiotic (left wing) mindset.

So this is what Lefty's think skeptical inquiry is all about? Falling for every hoax that comes along and feeling smug about it? Anybody wanna buy some Tulip Bulbs? Anybody, anybody? Get 'em now, before AGW makes tulips extinct!

 

[Cynic]

Quite a lot of plants and animals are in danger from it climate shifts, actually. For instance, say a certain plant is usually fertilized or has its seed dispersed by a certain insect. After so much co-evolution has made them dependent on each other, it gets warmer and the plant adjusts to the earlier cues and grows sooner and then blooms sooner. Meanwhile, the insect doesn't adjust as quickly -- likely having different cues -- and its larvae remains in the ground. The plants fail to disperse as well, doesn't bode well for it. Worse, the insect finally emerges at its usual time and its food source has already come and gone -- which doesn't bode well for it. This happens again and again until neither species is viable unless something else can step in and fulfill their roles or they manage to adjust to each other again before they're gone.

This is regardless of the cause of climate shifts.

 

[FarmallMTA]

Quite a lot of plants and animals are in danger from it climate shifts, actually. For instance, say a certain plant is usually fertilized or has its seed dispersed by a certain insect. After so much co-evolution has made them dependent on each other, it gets warmer and the plant adjusts to the earlier cues and grows sooner and then blooms sooner. Meanwhile, the insect doesn't adjust as quickly -- likely having different cues -- and its larvae remains in the ground. The plants fail to disperse as well, doesn't bode well for it. Worse, the insect finally emerges at its usual time and its food source has already come and gone -- which doesn't bode well for it. This happens again and again until neither species is viable unless something else can step in and fulfill their roles or they manage to adjust to each other again before they're gone.

This is regardless of the cause of climate shifts.

You're so right. All those plants that take in CO2 through their stomata and fix it via the C3/C4 cycles are in such extreme danger of CO2 overload, too. Don't forget that part.

And all the additional O2 those plants will generate is going to be dangerous for animals. We know, for example, that elevated O2 level causes humans to gamble more when in Vegas.

But since Dr. Phil Jones now assures us that the whole CO2 pollution thing is quite the bunkum, I think you can sleep peacefully about the whole thing tonight.

 

[Cynic]

You're so right. All those plants that take in CO2 through their stomata and fix it via the C3/C4 cycles are in such extreme danger of CO2 overload, too. Don't forget that part.

And all the additional O2 those plants will generate is going to be dangerous for animals. We know, for example, that elevated O2 level causes humans to gamble more when in Vegas.

But since Dr. Phil Jones now assures us that the whole CO2 pollution thing is quite the bunkum, I think you can sleep peacefully about the whole thing tonight.

What part of what I said had anything do to with CO2 or O2?

 

[FarmallMTA]

What part of what I said had anything do to with CO2 or O2?

Hey, I'm helping you out, here. I'm just helping you overstate your case that our planet-on-a-hotplate is going to be a desert isle, bereft of plants, animals, and girls in bikinis.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Funny. Observing leftists congratulate and stroke each other for 5 pages is like listening to one hand clap. Very amusing agreement from an utterly idiotic (left wing) mindset.

So this is what Lefty's think skeptical inquiry is all about? Falling for every hoax that comes along and feeling smug about it? Anybody wanna buy some Tulip Bulbs? Anybody, anybody? Get 'em now, before AGW makes tulips extinct!

Trying to find something factual in this post........ still looking..... nope, doesn't seem to be anything here except personal whining.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Hey, I'm helping you out, here. I'm just helping you overstate your case that our planet-on-a-hotplate is going to be a desert isle, bereft of plants, animals, and girls in bikinis.

I'm pretty sure Cynic leans the the right politically. Wondering if you were aware of that?

 

[Cynic]

I'm pretty sure Cynic leans the the right politically. Wondering if you were aware of that?

I certainly wasn't.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm pretty sure Cynic leans the the right politically. Wondering if you were aware of that?

It's a matter of relativity. From where Farmall sits, everyone is a leftist.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I certainly wasn't.

Then why was it I had to put you on my ignore list a while back after you were so rude in one if the political threads?

 

[Cynic]

Then why was it I had to put you on my ignore list a while back after you were so rude in one if the political threads?

I'm not sure what one has to do with the other, but I don't recall. I was on ignore? Huh. What was the thread? I'm perfectly willing to argue fine points if I think they're correct, even if they don't favor my own preferences.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not sure what one has to do with the other, but I don't recall. I was on ignore? Huh. What was the thread? I'm perfectly willing to argue fine points if I think they're correct, even if they don't favor my own preferences.

I don't put people on ignore for disagreeing, I put them on ignore for rude, uncalled for, unproductive comments. It's only been a small number of right wingers I've ever been that disgusted with.

It's been so long, I've forgotten. I looked and don't see any access to the dates one adds or deletes names from the ignore list. But I took you off a few days ago because you were posting reasonable stuff.

 

[GStan]

I don't put people on ignore for disagreeing, I put them on ignore for rude, uncalled for, unproductive comments. It's only been a small number of right wingers I've ever been that disgusted with.

It's been so long, I've forgotten. I looked and don't see any access to the dates one adds or deletes names from the ignore list. But I took you off a few days ago because you were posting reasonable stuff.

Have you ever been sufficiently disgusted with a left winger to put them on your ignore list?

 

[DJW]

Have you ever been sufficiently disgusted with a left winger to put them on your ignore list?

I'll bet she does it all the time. She only thinks they're rightwing.

 

[Cynic]

I don't put people on ignore for disagreeing, I put them on ignore for rude, uncalled for, unproductive comments. It's only been a small number of right wingers I've ever been that disgusted with.

It's been so long, I've forgotten. I looked and don't see any access to the dates one adds or deletes names from the ignore list. But I took you off a few days ago because you were posting reasonable stuff.

Maybe you have me confused with someone else.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Have you ever been sufficiently disgusted with a left winger to put them on your ignore list?

Well they don't tend to call me names and such.

Seriously, it doesn't have to do with beliefs, philosophies, positions and so on. But in certain threads certain people get nasty toward those they disagree with. Just peruse the Abandon all hope forum and you'll see more than a few examples.

Sometimes it's best to just shut your eyes (ears) to them for a while.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Maybe you have me confused with someone else.

And yet you were on my ignore list.

I don't know. I looked in AAH but found nothing except the fact my posts are confined to the dungeon waaaay more often than yours are.

Whatever it was, it was a long time ago.

 

[novice skeptic]

I haven't been keeping up with this thread, but if we're anywhere near the topic of the OP, isn't this stuff all a big tu quoque argument?

It doesn't undo the ignorance of people claiming a snowstorm disproves global warming to point out that some people might wrongly claim other things are due to global warming.

It doesn't undo the ignorance, but it does beg the question: Are the people that MikeMangum quoted playing to the ignorant or actually ignorant? If the OP believes that one cannot make these anecdotal claims to deny climate change (which I agree with) and if she believes these people are either ignorant or evil, isn't it fair to ask her about people who make the OPPOSITE claim using single anecdotes and whether they too are ignorant or evil.

I don't think Mike's point was that the global warming critics are correct because the other side also used flimsy evidence. I think his point was that the OP's righteous indignation might have more to do with the people's opinions than it does with the logic or reasoning they used to form those opinions.

 

[leftysergeant]

It is pretty clear that some of the AGW deniers are evil, like Beck and the fat deaf eunuch and a lot of the people in the previous administration, like Noxious Norton.

The only thing I have been able to find wrong with the way that the AGW case was built was that one of the researchers was kind of slopy in dealiong with papers.

The deniers still have to come up with some research to show that AGW is not occurring.

All they have is a bunch of whiners with the bean-counter mentality typical of ecconomists kvetchin about the cost of responding to something they do not think is proven science.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It doesn't undo the ignorance, but it does beg the question: Are the people that MikeMangum quoted playing to the ignorant or actually ignorant? If the OP believes that one cannot make these anecdotal claims to deny climate change (which I agree with) and if she believes these people are either ignorant or evil, isn't it fair to ask her about people who make the OPPOSITE claim using single anecdotes and whether they too are ignorant or evil.

I don't think Mike's point was that the global warming critics are correct because the other side also used flimsy evidence. I think his point was that the OP's righteous indignation might have more to do with the people's opinions than it does with the logic or reasoning they used to form those opinions.

I've never denied, including in this thread, there are no ignorant people on the left. Clearly there are plenty. I see no attempt by these ignorant left leaning folks to drum up a following by playing to the CT believers. At worse a few politicians fake their god beliefs for political gain.

On the right, you have another story. You have the Exxons actually paying to campaign against the science. Who knows where Bush really was on the issue. Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh could believe in their fallacies or could be creating their entire schtick for money. Chances are it's a mix or they believe it.