When knowledge is suppressed we all lose.

[dagnabit]

a:educate yourself.
b:your post are quickly becoming beneath my notice.

c:you might have caught diarrhea of the keyboard from hoosier.

a: i have several degrees and dont believe in doomsday cults of any sort.

b: ignore me then? (common tactic of cultists to ignore reason)

c: huh?

so will you be ignoring me then (please ohhh please) that is the common tactic is it not? neg rep,claim some moral high ground then ignore your betters?

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Ignore reason? I would never.
you've not said anything reasonable, nor provided any points to consider... you merely repeat the word 'cultist' ad nauseum, which cannot properly be applied to me or the scientists.

 

[Weird]

the truth continues to :unfold: to us all as our actions shape the future

the collective of science is not closer or further away from the truth than those who simply live within the truth of the world they see, hear, feel, smell and touch since truth is relative to the person perceiving it and the actions of the person who perceives impacts the truth

perception is a matter of of relative interpretations and the more limited the number of perspectives they are applying to everyone else then the more the mitigate the whole of the truth

wake up to find out that WE are the eyes of the world

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

a: i have several degrees and dont believe in doomsday cults of any sort.

b: ignore me then? (common tactic of cultists to ignore reason)

c: huh?

so will you be ignoring me then (please ohhh please) that is the common tactic is it not? neg rep,claim some moral high ground then ignore your betters?

Nah... no ignore button... your posts may be beneath my notice and unworthy of reply, but i like slumming occasionally.

high moral ground? you misunderstand... your post are not morally beneath me, they are just too idiotic or irrelevant to deserve consideration reply.

attacking me or al gore or science in general is nothing but empty useless ad hominem rhetoric.

Diarrhea of the keyboard is when you are typing a whole lot of shit that has no solid substance, and you are most assuredly displaying symptoms.

You are not my better on any level (except perhaps in your own mind).

Now... GTFU and educate yourself along the way. Maybe you'll catch up someday.

 

[dagnabit]

if the foo shits....



but this digression is pointless...

remember the world is only 6000 years old and there was a sphere of ice in place of the troposphere creating a hyperbearic effect that caused regular lizards to grow to giant sized. those giant lizards are the "dinosaurs" of the evolutionists. man coexisted with those giant lizards and even used them as beasts of burden.
this is all backed up by science and any dispute of said science is "denialisim"
http://www.icr.org/science/
http://www.drdino.com/wrong-assumptions-in-c-14-dating-methods/
http://mall.turnpike.net/C/cs/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/



science.......


denialisim....

semantics...

cults.....

you guys keep arguing all you want..

assume how much others know based on your own limitations.

i hold all doomsday believers and religious nuts in the exact same camp.

whether your doomsday comes in the form of global warming or gods wrath its all narcissism. its self importance and its nothing new its how god was born really...

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

the truth continues to :unfold: to us all as our actions shape the future

the collective of science is not closer or further away from the truth than those who simply live within the truth of the world they see, hear, feel, smell and touch since truth is relative to the person perceiving it and the actions of the person who perceives impacts the truth

perception is a matter of of relative interpretations and the more limited the number of perspectives they are applying to everyone else then the more the mitigate the whole of the truth

wake up to find out that WE are the eyes of the world

So if no one had reported the unprecedented wildfires, floods, mudslides, draughts, or heat waves, they would not have happened?

If we had never observed the physical properties of CO2, there would be no absorption and re-radiation of heat?

If I ignore dagnabit, he'll cease to exist?

might be worth a shot...

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

if the foo shits....



but this digression is pointless...

remember the world is only 6000 years old and there was a sphere of ice in place of the troposphere creating a hyperbearic effect that caused regular lizards to grow to giant sized. those giant lizards are the "dinosaurs" of the evolutionists. man coexisted with those giant lizards and even used them as beasts of burden.
this is all backed up by science and any dispute of said science is "denialisim"
http://www.icr.org/science/
http://www.drdino.com/wrong-assumptions-in-c-14-dating-methods/
http://mall.turnpike.net/C/cs/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/



science.......


denialisim....

semantics...

cults.....

you guys keep arguing all you want..

assume how much others know based on your own limitations.

i hold all doomsday believers and religious nuts in the exact same camp.

whether your doomsday comes in the form of global warming or gods wrath its all narcissism. its self importance and its nothing new its how god was born really...

Scientists are constantly trying to disprove scientific theories... That's what science is... that is not denial.
You have no understanding of science or denialism.

right now, the best quickest path to fame and fortune would be to legitimately provide disproof of AGW...
It's amazing how backwards denialists think, and how poorly they understand the working of science.

I'll more fully address the obvious stupidity of your post when I return home after errands.

 

[dagnabit]

If I ignore dagnabit, he'll cease to exist?

might be worth a shot...

if you click the button yes i will .... for you

the problem with the rest of your statement is the single qualifier "unprecedented"
none of the things you listed were "unprecedented"

 

[dagnabit]

Scientists are constantly trying to disprove scientific theories.
You have no understanding of science or denialism.

projecting your inadequacies upon me does not make them mine.

i understand just fine..try a new tactic

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

projecting your inadequacies upon me does not make them mine.

i understand just fine..try a new tactic

your every post parades your lack of understanding.


tactics... lmao.

you're making yourself look pathetic, son... i'm done with your ignorance...
I look at all sides, you don't.
'nuff said.

 

[dagnabit]

your every post parades your lack of understanding.


tactics... lmao.

you're making yourself look pathetic, son... i'm done with your ignorance...
I look at all sides, you don't.
'nuff said.

thanks "dad" have a nice day sport. see ya at the beach kiddo. dont take any wooden nickels junior.

pet names? i had no idea we were that close schnookums!

 

[GMT]

if you look for anything on the internet you will find it. Penguins can't fly, heres footage of them flying http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrxmpihCjqw&NR=1&feature=fvwp it doesnt mean penguins can fly though. This is the the problem that i was refering to in my earlier post, most dont have the ability to weigh up the oposing arguements. What possible reasons could the oil men have for stating that global warming isnt happening? If you cant think of any for yourself, then no matter what anyone else says to you, you wont believe them.

 

[Mezz Mezzrow]

What possible reasons could the oil men have for stating that global warming isnt happening?

Can you ask the converse without prejudice? What possible reasons could a "New World Order" have to state that it is and that it is caused by human energy use?

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Can you ask the converse without prejudice? What possible reasons could a "New World Order" have to state that it is and that it is caused by human energy use?

Oil men exist. Conspiracy of 'an elite cabal ruling the world' probably does not.
The likelyhood of all the world's scientists conspiring to promote a government agenda is slim to none.

I arrived at the conclusions I have arrived at by careful consideration of the case as presented by all sides.
Nothing at all 'faith like' in my conclusions.

If you bother to seriously study up on the science, the conclusion is inescapable.
global warming is simple physics and easily demonstrated.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

here's where dagnabit fails...

Skeptics I have respect for.
Skepticism is entirely different from denialism.

Perhaps he never read the opening post of the thread.

denialists use the tactics mentioned in the first post. none of those tactics actually demonstrates anything.
scientists have huge bodies of irrefutable evidence, which actually demonstrate their assertions.

Denialists cherrypick a few of the facts to support what they want to believe.
Scientists compare all of the available facts and believe that what the evidence indicates to be true is most likely true.

he's calling oranges, apples... and hoping some of you become as confused as he is.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

To refresh the memories of those who's discussion tactics epitomize the thread's topic.

scientific denialism is detrimental.

A fascinating paper well worth reading is Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond? (Diethelm & McKee 2009) (H/T to Jeremy Kemp for the heads-up). While the focus is on public health issues, it nevertheless establishes some useful general principles on the phenomenon of scientific denialism. A vivid example is the President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, who argued against the scientific consensus that HIV caused AIDS. This led to policies preventing thousands of HIV positive mothers in South Africa from receiving anti-retrovirals. It's estimated these policies led to the loss of more than 330,000 lives (Chigwedere 2008). Clearly the consequences of denying science can be dire, even fatal.

The authors define denialism as "the employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none, an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists". They go on to identify 5 characteristics common to most forms of denialism:

Conspiracy theories
When the overwhelming body of scientific opinion believes something is true, the denialist won't admit scientists have independently studied the evidence to reach the same conclusion. Instead, they claim scientists are engaged in a complex and secretive conspiracy. The South African government of Thabo Mbeki was heavily influenced by conspiracy theorists claiming that HIV was not the cause of AIDS. When such fringe groups gain the ear of policy makers who cease to base their decisions on science-based evidence, the human impact can be disastrous.
Fake experts
These are individuals purporting to be experts but whose views are inconsistent with established knowledge. Fake experts have been used extensively by the tobacco industry who developed a strategy to recruit scientists who would counteract the growing evidence on the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. This tactic is often complemented by denigration of established experts, seeking to discredit their work. Tobacco denialists have frequently attacked Stanton Glantz, professor of medicine at the University of California, for his exposure of tobacco industry tactics, labelling his research 'junk science'.
Cherry picking
This involves selectively drawing on isolated papers that challenge the consensus to the neglect of the broader body of research. An example is a paper describing intestinal abnormalities in 12 children with autism, which suggested a possible link with immunization. This has been used extensively by campaigners against immunization, even though 10 of the paper’s 13 authors subsequently retracted the suggestion of an association.
Impossible expectations of what research can deliver
The tobacco company Philip Morris tried to promote a new standard for the conduct of epidemiological studies. These stricter guidelines would have invalidated in one sweep a large body of research on the health effects of cigarettes.
Misrepresentation and logical fallacies
Logical fallacies include the use of straw men, where the opposing argument is misrepresented, making it easier to refute. For example, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined in 1992 that environmental tobacco smoke was carcinogenic. This was attacked as nothing less than a 'threat to the very core of democratic values and democratic public policy'.

Why is it important to define the tactics of denialism? Good faith discussion requires consideration of the full body of scientific evidence. This is difficult when confronted with rhetorical techniques which are designed to distort and distract. Identifying and publicly exposing these tactics are the first step in redirecting discussion back to a focus on the science.

 

[dagnabit]

here's where dagnabit fails...

Skeptics I have respect for.
Skepticism is entirely different from denialism.

Perhaps he never read the opening post of the thread.

denialists use the tactics mentioned in the first post. none of those tactics actually demonstrates anything.
scientists have huge bodies of irrefutable evidence, which actually demonstrate their assertions.

he's calling oranges, apples... and hoping some of you become as confused as he is.

us poor hill folk from southern butt fuck need folks like you to tell people what we think.

im so glad i found you!!!! will you come behind my every post to tell everyone what i mean?

obviously i cant even read!!! im talk to typing this right now!!!
i cant believe this computer can even understand my thick speech impediment caused by the mutations to my jaw as a result of so many generations of inbreeding!

please ohhh wise one explain how your "denialisim" of creation science is somehow superior to my "denialisim" so i can refrain from being soooo stupid...

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

us poor hill folk from southern butt fuck need folks like you to tell people what we think.

im so glad i found you!!!! will you come behind my every post to tell everyone what i mean?

obviously i cant even read!!! im talk to typing this right now!!!
i cant believe this computer can even understand my thick speech impediment caused by the mutations to my jaw as a result of so many generations of inbreeding!

please ohhh wise one explain how your "denialisim" of creation science is somehow superior to my "denialisim" so i can refrain from being soooo stupid...

you are beyond help.
stupid must be your destiny.

I'm from the south as are many other intelligent people.
You just happen not to be one of them.
Where you live is irrelevant to your decision to remain uneducated.

Denialism uses the following tactics... I can easily provide evidence proving that young earth creationism is not possible, and do so using none on the denialist tactics. Your comparisson is an obvious desperate attempt at mischaracterization, and is also another epic fail.

A fascinating paper well worth reading is Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond? (Diethelm & McKee 2009) (H/T to Jeremy Kemp for the heads-up). While the focus is on public health issues, it nevertheless establishes some useful general principles on the phenomenon of scientific denialism. A vivid example is the President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, who argued against the scientific consensus that HIV caused AIDS. This led to policies preventing thousands of HIV positive mothers in South Africa from receiving anti-retrovirals. It's estimated these policies led to the loss of more than 330,000 lives (Chigwedere 2008). Clearly the consequences of denying science can be dire, even fatal.

The authors define denialism as "the employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none, an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists". They go on to identify 5 characteristics common to most forms of denialism:

Conspiracy theories
When the overwhelming body of scientific opinion believes something is true, the denialist won't admit scientists have independently studied the evidence to reach the same conclusion. Instead, they claim scientists are engaged in a complex and secretive conspiracy. The South African government of Thabo Mbeki was heavily influenced by conspiracy theorists claiming that HIV was not the cause of AIDS. When such fringe groups gain the ear of policy makers who cease to base their decisions on science-based evidence, the human impact can be disastrous.
Fake experts
These are individuals purporting to be experts but whose views are inconsistent with established knowledge. Fake experts have been used extensively by the tobacco industry who developed a strategy to recruit scientists who would counteract the growing evidence on the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. This tactic is often complemented by denigration of established experts, seeking to discredit their work. Tobacco denialists have frequently attacked Stanton Glantz, professor of medicine at the University of California, for his exposure of tobacco industry tactics, labelling his research 'junk science'.
Cherry picking
This involves selectively drawing on isolated papers that challenge the consensus to the neglect of the broader body of research. An example is a paper describing intestinal abnormalities in 12 children with autism, which suggested a possible link with immunization. This has been used extensively by campaigners against immunization, even though 10 of the paper’s 13 authors subsequently retracted the suggestion of an association.
Impossible expectations of what research can deliver
The tobacco company Philip Morris tried to promote a new standard for the conduct of epidemiological studies. These stricter guidelines would have invalidated in one sweep a large body of research on the health effects of cigarettes.
Misrepresentation and logical fallacies
Logical fallacies include the use of straw men, where the opposing argument is misrepresented, making it easier to refute. For example, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined in 1992 that environmental tobacco smoke was carcinogenic. This was attacked as nothing less than a 'threat to the very core of democratic values and democratic public policy'.

Why is it important to define the tactics of denialism? Good faith discussion requires consideration of the full body of scientific evidence. This is difficult when confronted with rhetorical techniques which are designed to distort and distract. Identifying and publicly exposing these tactics are the first step in redirecting discussion back to a focus on the science.

wallow in ignorance for all I care.

 

[dagnabit]

I can provide evidence proving that young earth creationism is not possible, and do so using none on the denialist tactics.


wallow in ignorance for all I care.

wow usins was teached science dont have no method for provin' a negative.

isa hates bein' so dadgum ignoramulated.

 

[In~Plain~Site]

Until the next great discovery...

How significant