Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 23841 - 23860 of total 29698 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jun 4, 2014 - 10:32pm PT
Have a bad day in the market Bruce? Aint you full of piss and vinegar tonight. What ,you onto the second liter of that god awful and cheap ass canadian whisky? Go to sleep before you hurt yourself pounding away on that keyboard.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jun 4, 2014 - 10:36pm PT
Now I know you still haven't read the article rick - not because you are functionally illiterate like some, more because you hope not to see yourself in the mirror - so Here's a few more cuts:

An aversion to complexity—at least when communicating with the public—can also be seen in the types of answers politicians now provide the media. The average length of a sound bite by a presidential candidate in 1968 was 42.3 seconds. Two decades later, it was 9.8 seconds. Today, it’s just a touch over seven seconds and well on its way to being supplanted by 140-character Twitter bursts.

Little wonder then that distrust—of leaders, institutions, experts, and those who report on them—is rampant. A YouGov poll conducted last December found that three-quarters of Americans agreed that science is a force for good in the world. Yet when asked if they truly believe what scientists tell them, only 36 per cent of respondents said yes. Just 12 per cent expressed strong confidence in the press to accurately report scientific findings. (Although according to a 2012 paper by Gordon Gauchat, a University of North Carolina sociologist, the erosion of trust in science over the past 40 years has been almost exclusively confined to two groups: conservatives and regular churchgoers. Counterintuitively, it is the most highly educated among them—with post-secondary education—who harbour the strongest doubts.)

Isn't that funny that the most educated are the most firm in the certainty of their opinion? Sure it sounds right - the more you know the more certain... right? But wait - did you ever bother to read up on your dunning Krugger syndrome? If you know anything about that, as well as if you actually had any depth of experience in any domain of technical scientific enquiry, you'd know that something of the opposite occurs, due to .....you become aware of uncertainty as a functional reality. Which of course means that your own beliefs can be proven wrong, given a weight of evidence.

But you don't truck with that weak kneed librul wishy washy stuff do you? It sounds too

humiliating
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jun 4, 2014 - 10:44pm PT
I don't drink Canadian Whiskey. Its almost as bad as american Whiskey. But if I did even to excess you'd still be too damn chicken to debate your understanding of judgement wouldn't you? Thats what its all about you know... all that american exceptionalism turns out to be nothing but an excess of resources to plunder plus material wealth, swollen heads and a deficit of judgement... and humility, which goes hand in hand after all.

Too bad you guys squandered your opportunity to get smart when you had the chance. Oh well, at least you got guns!
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jun 4, 2014 - 10:54pm PT
OK I'll leave poor little Ricky alone to lick his hurtin' balls in peace... for now.

This ones for Chuff anyway, which I'm sure he will relish as another great affirmation of Chuffian Darwinism and the uselessness of aspiring to anything.

A study by two Princeton University researchers, Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page, released last month, tracked 1,800 U.S. policy changes between 1981 and 2002, and compared the outcome with the expressed preferences of median-income Americans, the affluent, business interests and powerful lobbies. They concluded that average citizens “have little or no independent influence” on policy in the U.S., while the rich and their hired mouthpieces routinely get their way. “The majority does not rule,” they wrote.

Smart money versus dumb voters is hardly a fair fight. But it does offer compelling evidence that the survival of the fittest remains an unshakable truth even in American life. A sad sort of proof of evolution.

rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jun 4, 2014 - 11:22pm PT
I'll answer that last posting . Yes, I'm in complete agreement with that short summation that Brewsky, the Korn Swilling denialist, just offered up. The "smart money" is deployed in lobsided abundance by the not so smart progressives seeking the purchase of compliance by the disaffected masses they somehow bus, unbury , or newly document to vote against their own long term interest in favor of the sloth of short term gain. Yes, the reality of human existence is competition and survival of the fittest, without it we stagnate and perish.
jonnyrig

Trad climber
formerly known as hillrat
Jun 4, 2014 - 11:31pm PT
Oh yes mr K. Please tell us all about humility.
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Jun 5, 2014 - 04:09am PT
K-man - It's no surprise you continue to lie and take the low road. But your posts from last night really set a new standard for hyper-defensiveness. Are you familiar with Hamlet?

See ya.
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Jun 5, 2014 - 05:12am PT
Sketch...Hyper-defensiveness..? Is that the opposite of hyper-offensiveness...?
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jun 5, 2014 - 06:30am PT
Sure J Rig, I'll tell you as much as I know... tell you what - you start off. You explain your understanding of the word, its uses and miss-uses, Its functional role in this particular topic of judgement and just maybe we'll start to see that judgement is entirely possible and relevant even in a field of study where even a self confident Dunning Krugger devotee like rick sumner is worse than a fish out of water. More like a Bull in a china shop that if you multiply by half your population then you begin to get the picture as to the sorry state of mouth breathing in america.

I've suggested numerous times to Rick that its not so much his technical scientific expertise that is on trial, its his basic common sense and powers of judgement, humility being an integral component without which failure is guaranteed. He declines, either afraid of the implications if he fails or deluded by faith that judgement is inferior to loyalty.

But not you eh? Up for a little session of discovery J Rig?
jonnyrig

Trad climber
formerly known as hillrat
Jun 5, 2014 - 07:43am PT
Why would i take the time to enter such a philosophical debate with you when i clearly lack the necessary time? It,s so much more entertaining to swooop by and drop a snarky comment as a worthless diversion for a guy like yourself who seems to feel he,s got something to teach me about humility and american knuckle-dragging. Thanks, but i,ve been wrong before, will be again, accept the limits of my own judgement or lack thereof, and already know full-well that roughly half the country are idiots.

Why, just the other day the wif and i were considering where to migrate. I hear Canada,s beutiful. Ya got mountains, fishing, and vast exanse of open country to explore. Oh, and i can bring rifles and kill sh#t. Stretch out yer open arms brother... Here we come!
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all the Sheep from atop the Hill
Jun 5, 2014 - 08:05am PT
Why, just the other day the wife and i were considering where to migrate. I hear Canada,s beutiful. Ya got mountains, fishing, and vast exanse of open country to explore. Oh, and i can bring rifles and kill sh#t. Stretch out yer open arms brother... Here we come!

LMAO....Fking PRICELESS!!!







That made my day plus 1.

Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jun 5, 2014 - 08:06am PT
Darn. Not your interest in immigration, just that there is still not one single climate change debater willing to actually expose themselves to a little examination of our own abilities of judgement. The snarky one liners i don't mind, but the dancing around the elephant in the room is really weak, when you think that this whole issue is one of judgement, yet no one wants to touch the process of judgement with a ten foot pole!

Surely there is more to this than snarky yet clever one liners?






































Naw! This is Umurica, where every one liner is valued by its snark and cleverness, everything else is missing the point
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jun 5, 2014 - 08:14am PT
More stuff Rick will refuse to read, for fear his confidence may erode under the ever present threat of humility....



The advance of ignorance and irrationalism in the U.S. has hardly gone unnoticed. The late Columbia University historian Richard Hofstadter won the Pulitzer prize back in 1964 for his book Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, which cast the nation’s tendency to embrace stupidity as a periodic by-product of its founding urge to democratize everything. By 2008, journalist Susan Jacoby was warning that the denseness—“a virulent mixture of anti-rationalism and low expectations”—was more of a permanent state. In her book, The Age of American Unreason, she posited that it trickled down from the top, fuelled by faux-populist politicians striving to make themselves sound approachable rather than smart. Their creeping tendency to refer to everyone—voters, experts, government officials—as “folks” is “symptomatic of a debasement of public speech inseparable from a more general erosion of American cultural standards,” she wrote. “Casual, colloquial language also conveys an implicit denial of the seriousness of whatever issue is being debated: talking about folks going off to war is the equivalent of describing rape victims as girls.”

That inarticulate legacy didn’t end with George W. Bush and Sarah Palin. Barack Obama, the most cerebral and eloquent American leader in a generation, regularly plays the same card, droppin’ his Gs and dialling down his vocabulary to Hee Haw standards. His ability to convincingly play a hayseed was instrumental in his 2012 campaign against the patrician Mitt Romney; in one of their televised debates the President referenced “folks” 17 times.



Far better to have a hockey Mom running things than some pompous know it all. Hell, if you can understand the game of hockey from your easy chair, how hard can figgerin' out climate be?
jonnyrig

Trad climber
formerly known as hillrat
Jun 5, 2014 - 08:24am PT
Look dude, i,ve already resigned myself to climate-change-for-the-worse. While i personally have no desire to contribute to that change, there also isnt much im able to do that will stop it. So its really just a matter of surviving the rest of my life and teaching my kids a valuable skill set that would be welcomed worldwide, like energy industry service, corporate food production, or marketing. In addition, if i convince them to learn spanish, chinese, russian, or canadian eh? they could truly be citizens of the earth, and not just this little map-stain.
Seriously though, im thinkin if i can buy a little plot in coastal canada, as well as one in west mexico as a hedge-bet, then my little family unit can follow the temperate zone regardless of who,s climate model wins the popularity vote in the long run.
Nobody wants to see me dance. Id just step on the elephants feet. And our changing climate isnt much of a debate to me, just what i gota do to keep postin my smarky b.s. on the forum.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jun 5, 2014 - 08:34am PT
I think its a good call. The west coast of BC will likely have the best climate with the north pacific keep things wet and cool, plus the interior will become a agricultural hub. either way you better get out of Cal now while your property is worth something and the pickings are still good up here. Terrace is my bet or Rupert if you really need the coast. Like you say, plenty of room and animals to shoot too, and the fishing is off the charts and likely to persist like i said if the climate doesn't torch up like anything south of 49.

Considerabe amounts of virgin granite too, if you don't mind cleaning on a scale unknown in california. Its amazing how industrial rock climbing can get!
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Jun 5, 2014 - 08:37am PT
K-man - Let's review how this played out.

I commented about (mostly) believing scientific studies and about my skepticism of the media's coverage of climate related research.

You responded by going after me, claiming I prefer non-scientific opinion over science.

I called bullshit on in.

You come back with :
-------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) I can cite numerous posts of yours where you purposely misrepresent what I've said. Don't make me go back and quote you, it won't show a positive reflection of your personality.
(2) I got my views of your beliefs from your posts. Would you like me to quote some of your opinions? I don't have to go far back to see the cartoon you posted about the ice melting in Antarctica. If that 'toon doesn't represent your view, then why did you post it (it contained a lot of misinformation and wasn't really funny)?
(3) The "reasonable study" you posted is a five-year old OpEd. By your own calculation, the US has spent $100B on climate change research in the time since that OpEd was published.
Sketch, why don't you believe current studies??
-------------------------------------------------------------------

I challenged you to back up your boasts.
On the first one, you made a weaselly excuse.
On the second, you resorted to convoluted thinking, claiming your interpretation of a cartoon I posted was my opinion.
You offered circular logic. Here's an example:
I think that your posts represent your views. So to me, your posting of the cartoon indicates that the cartoon is a representation of your view.

That's not quoting some of my opinions. It's just you offering your interpretation of a cartoon I posted.

You did not quote my opinions, which you said you would do.... at least not until two weeks later... when I posted my opinion and told you about it.

With both of these boasts, they referred to previous posts... my record up to that point in time. Now, you're claiming my opinion posted two weeks after the fact vindicates you.

Are you really that dumb?

Oh yeah. That last question "why don't you believe current studies?" implies I don't believe current studies. I asked you to back that up. Did you? I don't think so. Just to clarify, I'm asking about posts that preceded your question/accussation.

Later.
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Jun 5, 2014 - 09:19am PT
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville

Jun 5, 2014 - 08:37am PT
K-man - Let's review how this played out.

I commented about (mostly) believing scientific studies and about my skepticism of the media's coverage of climate related research.

You responded by going after me, claiming I prefer non-scientific opinion over science.

k-man

Gym climber
SCruz

Topic Author's Reply - Jun 5, 2014 - 09:09am PT
Wow Sketch, really?

This last post is funny because you start out with another distortion of what was previously said:

Let's review how this played out.

I commented about (mostly) believing scientific studies and about my skepticism of the media's coverage of climate related research.

No Sketch, no, that's not how this started. Why do you need to distort things so?

This started out when I made a post that ended with the statement "Looks like you get your views from non-scientific OpEds rather than scientific fact."

You responded by going after me, claiming I prefer non-scientific opinion over science

Versus

"Looks like you get your views from non-scientific OpEds rather than scientific fact."



Wow. Huge difference. I see your point.

As far as the 1,2,3 questions.

You weaseled out of the first.

You did not quote my views (that existed at the time). It's not that I didn't like it. You didn't quote my views!!!

All you have to do is go back through your posts and pick out one or two that show your support for the conclusions of the recent scientific scientific studies on climate change. Should be easy, no?

Go ahead now, prove me wrong and regain some respect for yourself.

This is too funny. You make an accusation about me. I challenge you to back it up and you try to put the onus on me. You made the accusation. Back it up.
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Jun 5, 2014 - 09:24am PT
Again.

My position on this issue is man is responsible for rising CO2 levels, which are bad for the planet. They contribute to rising global temperatures. They may even be responsible for most of the recent warming.

Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Jun 5, 2014 - 09:40am PT
Again.

My position on this issue is man is responsible for rising CO2 levels, which are bad for the planet. They contribute to rising global temperatures. They may even be responsible for most of the recent warming.

yes, that is what I have understood for quite a while

so why then all the back and forth arguing?
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Jun 5, 2014 - 11:25am PT
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz

Topic Author's Reply - Jun 5, 2014 - 11:02am PT
Again.

My position on this issue is man is responsible for rising CO2 levels, which are bad for the planet. They contribute to rising global temperatures. They may even be responsible for most of the recent warming.


Sketch, please re-read my request. I said to give reference to past posts of yours showing your view on climate change. You know, posts that you made before this whole saga began so you can show me that your stated view was different from my statement that you prefer the opinions of OpEds over scientific study.

You're pathetic. You keep trying to put the onus on me. You made the claim. Back it up.

And, BTW, this statement or yours here, "They may even be responsible for most of the recent warming" is in opposition to the latest conclusions of the scientific studies on climate change.

Really? Which studies? Explain how they invalidate my position.

So again you prove that my statement regarding your opinion on AWG is correct, it is not aligned with scientific study.

But you knew that.

No. This is just you making stupid inferences. You prove nothing.

No comment on your lie of omission, from this morning?

You know.... where you accused me of distorting what was said, leaving out where I said the same thing you did.

No comment?

My quoted position was from last year. My recent entry was a repost.
Messages 23841 - 23860 of total 29698 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews