While BT continues to throw in baseless assertions, the h3ad y weight champion still reigns.
- Status
I want to know what one can gain from doing research in a university library?
Hell, I might give it a go if it gives you some sort of insight that would not normally be available.
I also what to know who really thinks where one does research does anything at all...besides the ones who tout their personal experience..we already know they feel real special as if they were on a higher level than others intellectually.
It apparently gives one the ability to judge others, and gives them a special insight concerning who are credible debaters and who aren't.
That is some real special shit right there.
I wish I had me a ejucashun.
Hell, I might give it a go if it gives you some sort of insight that would not normally be available.
I also what to know who really thinks where one does research does anything at all...besides the ones who tout their personal experience..we already know they feel real special as if they were on a higher level than others intellectually.
It apparently gives one the ability to judge others, and gives them a special insight concerning who are credible debaters and who aren't.
That is some real special shit right there.
I wish I had me a ejucashun.
sac beh
Member
The only response a science denier can make here--and in fact they commonly say this--is that universities and educational institutions in general are in on the conspiracy to deceive the public and promote NWO's plans, so of course anything in a university library is a lie.
It teaches you the meaty research skills you'll never develop if you forever suckle milky drivel from the teat of google's top hits.
Yes... being exposed to credible information does in fact help one develop the insight to discern credible sources of information. Research skills must be learned, just like any other skill.
Education is not hard to get.
Many well respected universities post all of their lectures to itunes for free download to all, and most universities have open libraries (actual physical libraries).
sac beh
Member
Its not necessary, and in the end of course the place doesn't matter, but the research methods and sources do.
Who commonly says that? Was it mentioned in this thread? I missed it.
That is the first I have heard that university libraries contained lies.
It is common knowledge that university cadres are chock full of dipshits with their heads up their asses, but the library lie thing is a new one on me...
Learn sumthun ever day.
That is the first I have heard that university libraries contained lies.
It is common knowledge that university cadres are chock full of dipshits with their heads up their asses, but the library lie thing is a new one on me...
Learn sumthun ever day.
sac beh
Member
Discernment of research sources is a skill that any human is capable of learning, with few exceptions. It is a critical thinking skill that can be applied to learning in all other fields of study.
This same discernment would also help you understand the difference between being a climate scientist and how to comment on client science using scientific sources.
The self congratulation is quite evident.
You like to ignore some salient points and have yet to back up your data on the bogus world map from hundreds of years ago. I want to see Methods and Materials or all you have is hot air and a pretty graphic.
Alex Jones is a researcher. He reads the government white papers and books like Ecoscience by John Holdren. He was one of the only people to read the entire Obamacare paper on the night of its release. Thats a good researcher. He has phd's and experts in their fields on to educate his viewers. He is backed up by over 10 years of being proven right. He predicted 9/11 in august of that year and his documentaries reach logical conclusions. Sure he gets emotional and sure he is fallible like everyone else. But as the USA slips more into fascism and the TSA are feeling your ballsack he was warning about that shit 10 or 15 years ago.
Anyway. You self congratulators have ignored some salient points in your rush to declare yourselves the 'winner'.
Here is the list of challenges yet to be met:
Hal Lewis's letter
1000 dissenting scientists and the recent senate minority report. A 6 month out of date rebuttal isnt good enough by a long way.
The article in the sciencedaily
Monkton emails
Methods and Materials of your science based on best guess based on models based on proxy data sites
You like to ignore some salient points and have yet to back up your data on the bogus world map from hundreds of years ago. I want to see Methods and Materials or all you have is hot air and a pretty graphic.
Alex Jones is a researcher. He reads the government white papers and books like Ecoscience by John Holdren. He was one of the only people to read the entire Obamacare paper on the night of its release. Thats a good researcher. He has phd's and experts in their fields on to educate his viewers. He is backed up by over 10 years of being proven right. He predicted 9/11 in august of that year and his documentaries reach logical conclusions. Sure he gets emotional and sure he is fallible like everyone else. But as the USA slips more into fascism and the TSA are feeling your ballsack he was warning about that shit 10 or 15 years ago.
Anyway. You self congratulators have ignored some salient points in your rush to declare yourselves the 'winner'.
Here is the list of challenges yet to be met:
Hal Lewis's letter
1000 dissenting scientists and the recent senate minority report. A 6 month out of date rebuttal isnt good enough by a long way.
The article in the sciencedaily
Monkton emails
Methods and Materials of your science based on best guess based on models based on proxy data sites
Don't have to be a climate scientist to sort out credible or verifiable.
Do you have anything to contribute besides rhetoric?
SSOG, I don't ignore any salient points, Neither does anyone acknowledging agw... you guys ignore my responses, though, so I can understand where you might not realize that.
Alex Jones is a huckster who's found a lucrative niche.
He did not predict 911... he just paid attention to warnings Bush ignored, other people had already done the predicting.
"Self congratulators" is just another in a long line of misapplied monikers attempting demonization. Have fun with those empty propaganda words.
Last edited:
maryj315
Member
Deception is winning right now JJScorpio. No different from the crap spewed against our movement. And it is having the same effect as some of this disinformation has now become part of the debate.
World leaders structure policy based on who wins this debate and in return effects all of us.
Mj
sac beh
Member
I've heard it said on this forum. Another form this theory takes is along the lines of: "that university cadres are chock full of dipshits with their heads up their asses."
IC needs a bot to automatically address repeated, discounted points. On second thought, bad idea. The thread would never stop.
sac beh
Member
But ten years of research in fairy tales promoting fear isn't one of the qualifications for doing climate science.
I think this is more of what I was getting at with my earlier question.
I have to follow this thread, as frustrating as it is, because of the numerous reported posts and I see the same old, same old posted over and over again. I see no logic in posting the same thing over and over again to unknown entities. I just don't follow.
I've looked at a few posters history and I see them posting the same thing for as many as ten straight hours. I guess to each his own but at the end of the day what have you really accomplished? If I were to sit all day long and argue about something like this at the end of the day I'd feel like I had wasted my entire day. And I really don't want to hear how this is a discussion, because with a discussion people are civil to one another and don't call each other names and they listen to what one another have to say. There also wouldn't be a dozen reported posts, as there have been in this thread.
I think some people just plain old enjoy arguing, lol...... When you sit at your computer getting all upset because someone says something you don't like, and your blood pressure goes up, your heart starts beating faster and you start breathing heavier, doesn't that contribute to global warming?
But anyways, I just wanted to post my opinion. And you know what they say about opinions, lol?
maryj315
Member
Just another poster that is seeking a different point of view rather than accept facts put fourth to him.
The world you live in is generated from the best answers scientists have to date.
Scientists in the field of AGW publish their work in journals to be scrutinized by others. No different from any other industry public or private.
Mj
Alex Jones just paid attention. Well there you have it. How many other people got on air and gave the world the heads up? He is like a filter. He filters out the constant corporate media lies and spin. But you just dismiss him as a huckster. Even though you admit he was paying attention and his warning was valid. Thats what is called a contradiction.
Ignorance breeds fear.
Knowledge breeds power.
Alex Jones is still on air and still very credible.
Comparing Al Gore to Alex Jones is really funny indeed. You can phone in to Alex's show and live on air debate him or ask a question. I see no such openness or willingness to debate from Gore or Mann or Jones et al.
They just say we are right and you are wrong. Heres some best guess science or outright manipulation of data now just stfu.
You DID NOT and HAVE NOT addressed my list of challenges.
The truth is the truth is the truth.
I am a truth seeker and i am here to challenge the manufactured concensus. O and i love a good debate
de·ny (d-n)
tr.v. de·nied, de·ny·ing, de·nies
1. To declare untrue; contradict.
2. To refuse to believe; reject.
3. To refuse to recognize or acknowledge; disavow.
4.
a. To decline to grant or allow; refuse: deny the student's request; denied the prisoner food or water.
b. To give a refusal to; turn down or away: The protesters were determined not to be denied.
c. To restrain (oneself) especially from indulgence in pleasures.
Synonyms: deny, contradict, contravene, disaffirm, gainsay, negate, traverse
Antonym: affirm
Technically the term applies, but not in the way most people think of the word.
It seems that negaters or diaffirmers or contradictors would suit as well for descriptors of thos who are on the less popular side of a contreversial issue.
The 'denier' label brings up mental images of a criminal denying his crime.
Something obviously must be wrong with a 'denier' is the thought most have when they hear it, whether subconscious or conscious.
That's why that word is used by the 'affirmers', and that why the 'contradictors' don 't like it.
So yeah, there is HUGE propaganda value in using the word 'denier' to describe someone who you think is on the wrong side of an issue, or who you think is merely wrong, or one who is in fact wrong.
If I said I did not believe in evolution, that doesn't make me an 'evolution denier'. Does it? I guess I just don't think of it that way, or maybe I'm just in denial of denial.
Last edited:
I have addressed all your challenges ssog, you just ignored it.
- Status
