(06-26-2014 03:53 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  My rant was less triggered by this and more by the other thread. I then opened this one and saw another jab so I spoke up. The constipated joke was more harmless but its still silly to copy/paste a pic of someone just to poke fun at their appearance. Yes I'm sure he's taken better pictures but I care more about the article than what this man looks like.

For what it's worth, the picture was copied from the article. And since it appears to be some sort of portrait it somehow got out to the world with his approval. Cheap shot? Maybe. But at least I didn't call him a racist, homophobe, bigot, Islamophobe, science denier, birther, or any of the things I've been called on this board. All I did was suggest the guy could use more fiber in his diet or something along those lines.

(06-26-2014 04:23 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 12:09 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I love it.

The creativity in deflecting and diverting is awesome.

More awesome than the creativity in deflecting and diverting from the obvious fact that virtually nobody on the right has EVER said that man doesn't impact the environment/climate??

Isn't this exactly what this guy is offering his bounty for?

The specific quote is... 'prove that human activity has not been a factor leading to climate change'

I'd be surprised if ANYONE believes that human activity has not been a factor leading to climate change. Simple and obvious things like the greater need for cattle, deforestation, water diversion, concrete, fossil fuels etc etc etc ALL are factors leading to climate change.

Are they the PRIMARY factors?
How much of that can actually be eliminated and at what cost?
How much impact will that elimination have?

The deflection starts with the OP.

The OP was specific about man being the primary cause, not simply that man affects the environment.

(06-26-2014 04:52 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 03:53 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  My rant was less triggered by this and more by the other thread. I then opened this one and saw another jab so I spoke up. The constipated joke was more harmless but its still silly to copy/paste a pic of someone just to poke fun at their appearance. Yes I'm sure he's taken better pictures but I care more about the article than what this man looks like.

For what it's worth, the picture was copied from the article. And since it appears to be some sort of portrait it somehow got out to the world with his approval. Cheap shot? Maybe. But at least I didn't call him a racist, homophobe, bigot, Islamophobe, science denier, birther, or any of the things I've been called on this board. All I did was suggest the guy could use more fiber in his diet or something along those lines.

I'd actually rather you DID call him those things if it was based off something he said or did. Attacking someones appearance is just tacky.

(06-26-2014 06:44 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 04:23 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 12:09 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I love it.

The creativity in deflecting and diverting is awesome.

More awesome than the creativity in deflecting and diverting from the obvious fact that virtually nobody on the right has EVER said that man doesn't impact the environment/climate??

Isn't this exactly what this guy is offering his bounty for?

The specific quote is... 'prove that human activity has not been a factor leading to climate change'

I'd be surprised if ANYONE believes that human activity has not been a factor leading to climate change. Simple and obvious things like the greater need for cattle, deforestation, water diversion, concrete, fossil fuels etc etc etc ALL are factors leading to climate change.

Are they the PRIMARY factors?
How much of that can actually be eliminated and at what cost?
How much impact will that elimination have?

The deflection starts with the OP.

The OP was specific about man being the primary cause, not simply that man affects the environment.

Then he's stark raving mad.

(06-26-2014 09:57 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 04:52 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 03:53 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  My rant was less triggered by this and more by the other thread. I then opened this one and saw another jab so I spoke up. The constipated joke was more harmless but its still silly to copy/paste a pic of someone just to poke fun at their appearance. Yes I'm sure he's taken better pictures but I care more about the article than what this man looks like.

For what it's worth, the picture was copied from the article. And since it appears to be some sort of portrait it somehow got out to the world with his approval. Cheap shot? Maybe. But at least I didn't call him a racist, homophobe, bigot, Islamophobe, science denier, birther, or any of the things I've been called on this board. All I did was suggest the guy could use more fiber in his diet or something along those lines.

I'd actually rather you DID call him those things if it was based off something he said or did. Attacking someones appearance is just tacky.

He probably looks nothing like the picture, but it is the picture he chose to put there. But you're right and I'm guilty as charged.

(06-26-2014 07:41 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 10:28 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  So a guy who will be the sole judge wrote a book called Undeniable: Dialogueson Global Warming. Seems fair.

Exactly.

Wait a minute, he's not trying to use this as a marketing scheme for his book is he?

What? You think he's being an evil global-warming capitalist??? Shame on you Torch, he only has the bestestest intentions :)

(06-26-2014 10:03 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 09:57 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 04:52 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 03:53 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  My rant was less triggered by this and more by the other thread. I then opened this one and saw another jab so I spoke up. The constipated joke was more harmless but its still silly to copy/paste a pic of someone just to poke fun at their appearance. Yes I'm sure he's taken better pictures but I care more about the article than what this man looks like.

For what it's worth, the picture was copied from the article. And since it appears to be some sort of portrait it somehow got out to the world with his approval. Cheap shot? Maybe. But at least I didn't call him a racist, homophobe, bigot, Islamophobe, science denier, birther, or any of the things I've been called on this board. All I did was suggest the guy could use more fiber in his diet or something along those lines.

I'd actually rather you DID call him those things if it was based off something he said or did. Attacking someones appearance is just tacky.

He probably looks nothing like the picture, but it is the picture he chose to put there. But you're right and I'm guilty as charged.

Happy with this conclusoon. I hope we all stick to attacking people for their thoughts and not looks from here on! Brains are a much more fun dart board anyway

(06-26-2014 10:43 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 10:03 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 09:57 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 04:52 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 03:53 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  My rant was less triggered by this and more by the other thread. I then opened this one and saw another jab so I spoke up. The constipated joke was more harmless but its still silly to copy/paste a pic of someone just to poke fun at their appearance. Yes I'm sure he's taken better pictures but I care more about the article than what this man looks like.

For what it's worth, the picture was copied from the article. And since it appears to be some sort of portrait it somehow got out to the world with his approval. Cheap shot? Maybe. But at least I didn't call him a racist, homophobe, bigot, Islamophobe, science denier, birther, or any of the things I've been called on this board. All I did was suggest the guy could use more fiber in his diet or something along those lines.

I'd actually rather you DID call him those things if it was based off something he said or did. Attacking someones appearance is just tacky.

He probably looks nothing like the picture, but it is the picture he chose to put there. But you're right and I'm guilty as charged.

Happy with this conclusoon. I hope we all stick to attacking people for their thoughts and not looks from here on! Brains are a much more fun dart board anyway

Now prove to me there's a global warming gene.

Im more concerned with melting polar caps, loss of wetlands habitat, and a risk of heightened hurricane season than arguing weather jargon.

WOW! Global warming now has its own Amazing Randi!!! How utterly charming.

Any cause with an Amazing Randi going for it can never be seriously challenged.

However, every cause with an Amazing Randi going for it has one obnoxiously strange proponent.

(06-26-2014 06:44 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  The OP was specific about man being the primary cause, not simply that man affects the environment.

Wrong. and you're actually unintentionally proving my point about the fallacy of the position.

Excuse me... that is unfair... Let me edit this...

Technically, The OP merely posted a link and sarcastically asked people to comment.

The article he linked was about a man who offered $10,000 for anyone to:

Quote:prove that human activity has not been a factor leading to climate change

written by someone who is clearly spinning his comments and the offer... which the OP seems to agree with.

The writers may give the IMPRESSION that they are offering money to prove that man isn't the primary cause as you claim, but the specific words used by the scientist are 'has not been a factor'.

This is the sort of manipulation that has become the trademark of this issue. You (one, not 'you') take a scientist claiming something entirely reasonable... and then claim that he is saying something he didn't say because it isn't supported by his facts... otherwise he would have said it... And when this is pointed out, you then claim that people are arguing with the scientist.

That is a very obvious example of obfuscation/deflection/spin/lie... you choose the adjective. THAT is where the fallacy of the conversation begins.

Correllation does not equal causation.

Well, color me un-surprised that dmacfour was unwilling to clearly post what he had personally done to combat man caused global warming.

dmacfour,it's curious, isn't it, that you continue to post on a message board fueled by carbon. Indeed, your entire civilization is based on carbon and petroleum products. Everything you can see and touch at this very moment incorporates carbon or petroleum to some extent - the fabric of your clothes, the computer your are writing on, the carpet on your floor, the laminate on your furniture, the container for your lunch, the paint on your wall, the car in which you drove to work in and will return to your home...........

So, dmacfour, I’ll believe global warming is a crisis when the people like you who keep telling me it’s a crisis, start acting like it’s a crisis.

dmacfour, until you walk the walk, denounce modern living, promise not to have kids, and only browse and glean for your food, you have no legitimacy to your claims and you have been positively identified as both a charlatan and a hypocrite.

But we all know dmacfour doesn’t support AGW theory because it’s science. If he was interested in science, he would support nuclear power and GM agriculture.

No, dmacfour supports AGW theory because when it is written into public policy it gives people like him control of everything — what kind of light bulbs we can buy, how many cars we are allowed to have (if any), even how much education our children are allowed to have.

It seems clear that dmacfour's AGW sham isn’t to save the planet, it’s to put government in complete control.

No thanks.

(06-27-2014 10:50 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 06:44 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  The OP was specific about man being the primary cause, not simply that man affects the environment.

Wrong. and you're actually unintentionally proving my point about the fallacy of the position.

Excuse me... that is unfair... Let me edit this...

Technically, The OP merely posted a link and sarcastically asked people to comment.

The article he linked was about a man who offered $10,000 for anyone to:

Quote:prove that human activity has not been a factor leading to climate change

written by someone who is clearly spinning his comments and the offer... which the OP seems to agree with.

The writers may give the IMPRESSION that they are offering money to prove that man isn't the primary cause as you claim, but the specific words used by the scientist are 'has not been a factor'.

This is the sort of manipulation that has become the trademark of this issue. You (one, not 'you') take a scientist claiming something entirely reasonable... and then claim that he is saying something he didn't say because it isn't supported by his facts... otherwise he would have said it... And when this is pointed out, you then claim that people are arguing with the scientist.

That is a very obvious example of obfuscation/deflection/spin/lie... you choose the adjective. THAT is where the fallacy of the conversation begins.

Good points.

(06-27-2014 10:50 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 06:44 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  The OP was specific about man being the primary cause, not simply that man affects the environment.

Wrong. and you're actually unintentionally proving my point about the fallacy of the position.
Excuse me... that is unfair... Let me edit this...
Technically, The OP merely posted a link and sarcastically asked people to comment.
The article he linked was about a man who offered $10,000 for anyone to:

Quote:prove that human activity has not been a factor leading to climate change

written by someone who is clearly spinning his comments and the offer... which the OP seems to agree with.
The writers may give the IMPRESSION that they are offering money to prove that man isn't the primary cause as you claim, but the specific words used by the scientist are 'has not been a factor'.
This is the sort of manipulation that has become the trademark of this issue. You (one, not 'you') take a scientist claiming something entirely reasonable... and then claim that he is saying something he didn't say because it isn't supported by his facts... otherwise he would have said it... And when this is pointed out, you then claim that people are arguing with the scientist.
That is a very obvious example of obfuscation/deflection/spin/lie... you choose the adjective. THAT is where the fallacy of the conversation begins.

I think those are nouns, not adjectives. Sorry, couldn't resist. Otherwise, spot on.

(06-27-2014 11:25 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Well, color me un-surprised that dmacfour was unwilling to clearly post what he had personally done to combat man caused global warming.

dmacfour,it's curious, isn't it, that you continue to post on a message board fueled by carbon. Indeed, your entire civilization is based on carbon and petroleum products. Everything you can see and touch at this very moment incorporates carbon or petroleum to some extent - the fabric of your clothes, the computer your are writing on, the carpet on your floor, the laminate on your furniture, the container for your lunch, the paint on your wall, the car in which you drove to work in and will return to your home...........

So, dmacfour, I’ll believe global warming is a crisis when the people like you who keep telling me it’s a crisis, start acting like it’s a crisis.

dmacfour, until you walk the walk, denounce modern living, promise not to have kids, and only browse and glean for your food, you have no legitimacy to your claims and you have been positively identified as both a charlatan and a hypocrite.

But we all know dmacfour doesn’t support AGW theory because it’s science. If he was interested in science, he would support nuclear power and GM agriculture.

No, dmacfour supports AGW theory because when it is written into public policy it gives people like him control of everything — what kind of light bulbs we can buy, how many cars we are allowed to have (if any), even how much education our children are allowed to have.

It seems clear that dmacfour's AGW sham isn’t to save the planet, it’s to put government in complete control.

No thanks.

Wow, you really put some thoguht into that. Nice. It made me think that the Taliban live greener than we do.

(06-27-2014 11:25 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Well, color me un-surprised that dmacfour was unwilling to clearly post what he had personally done to combat man caused global warming.

dmacfour,it's curious, isn't it, that you continue to post on a message board fueled by carbon. Indeed, your entire civilization is based on carbon and petroleum products. Everything you can see and touch at this very moment incorporates carbon or petroleum to some extent - the fabric of your clothes, the computer your are writing on, the carpet on your floor, the laminate on your furniture, the container for your lunch, the paint on your wall, the car in which you drove to work in and will return to your home...........

So, dmacfour, I’ll believe global warming is a crisis when the people like you who keep telling me it’s a crisis, start acting like it’s a crisis.

dmacfour, until you walk the walk, denounce modern living, promise not to have kids, and only browse and glean for your food, you have no legitimacy to your claims and you have been positively identified as both a charlatan and a hypocrite.

But we all know dmacfour doesn’t support AGW theory because it’s science. If he was interested in science, he would support nuclear power and GM agriculture.

No, dmacfour supports AGW theory because when it is written into public policy it gives people like him control of everything — what kind of light bulbs we can buy, how many cars we are allowed to have (if any), even how much education our children are allowed to have.

It seems clear that dmacfour's AGW sham isn’t to save the planet, it’s to put government in complete control.

No thanks.

This post demonstrates what I've always been saying about black and white thinking. In your mind, since I don't agree with your position, I must be on the other team. In your mind, there's no such thing as a moderate position on this issue. If I'm not a full retard greenie, I'm a hypocrite. In your mind, I'm a ******* fascist that wants control of your life.

What a load of horsesh!t. I don't have to ruin society to make steps in the right direction. I don't have to be a liberal to take global warming research seriously. I don't have to be against nuclear power or GM food, and I don't have to live on a commune to avoid being a hypocrite.

You see, a reasonable person doesn't let the Republicans, Democrats, MSNBC, or Fox News define what they believe. Unfortunately, we live in a country were if you're somewhere in the middle, both sides see you as one of the enemy. People like you do nothing to facilitate reasonable discussions or create reasonable solutions.

I'm not going to sit here and pretend that I fully understand AGW or that I know I'm right. For some reason, though, you guys have a false sense of confidence in your sources and the truth of their claims. I just don't get it. It seems like I have to repeat in every thread that I don't believe the science is settled or that scientists are undoubtedly right. I've left plenty of room for scientists to be wrong and skeptics to be right. The reverse isn't true for you guys, however. You act like you know for a fact that climate science is a load of sh!t? Based on what information? Partisan blog posts? I go out of my way to avoid sites like desmogblog and RealClimate. I don't see any of you avoiding places like Wattsupwiththat, or at least acknowledging that you're going to get one sided information from that kind of site.

And then there's this gem:

Quote:dmacfour, until you walk the walk, denounce modern living, promise not to have kids, and only browse and glean for your food, you have no legitimacy to your claims and you have been positively identified as both a charlatan and a hypocrite.