if you don't want your side to be called out as liars, please ask them to stop lying =)

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Isn't there a contradiction here? Isn't civilization itself a clan? We use the 'theory of majority" in a democratic/represenative government. We let our clan (Republicans, Democrats, etc.) represent us in the larger clan and then we agree to follow the laws and rules that our collective clan has established for us.

Choosing the point of where one abdicates his adherence to a philosphy is just one aspect of "the human condition;" there are other aspects (consider the seven deadly sins).

Besides, I don't think the point of civilization is to "rise above" the human condition. I think the point of civilization is how to best get along with others. Since we are social creatures, I think grouping and getting along with others IS an aspect of the human condition, not a method of "rising above" it.

When someone sees something they don't like and immediately jumps to the conclusion, "Well, there ought to be a law" is irrational in my opinion.

To use an analogy, lying is generally agreed upon to be a "bad thing." However, we don't have a law against it.

Quote:

I see a graph that tells me not to get freaked out and assume that my house is on fire simply because the temp inside is rising.

Climate change advocates would be in panic mode because the tempature is rising and assume it must be a fire (past evidence of temp rising be damned). When in fact, the house temp tends to warm nearly everyday as the sun comes up, some days less or more than others.

I dont know know much about "climate change" but there are fact distorting people on both sides. I honestly cant wrap my head around what you were trying to say or saying you saw in that graph.

But that is NOT what is happening. Not at all.

Scientists are not alarmed simply "because the planet is warming." Scientists are not as dumb as plumbers, musicians, and triathlon coaches when it comes to science. They don't just *assume* that the warming is bad and ignore the history of temperature changes on the planet. That's not what they do AT ALL.

a) the planet is warming (we agree.....but this is not where it stops)
b) it is warming WAY FASTER than it is supposed to
c) the warming is direclty linked to C02 emissions
d) these C02 emmissions have been proven to be man made
e) the warming will continue to accelerate if nothing changes
f) all trends show the causes of the warming to be increasing


It is a disengenuous strawman to argue against a) as the ONLY reason to believe AGW.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Who is immediately jumping to a conclusion?

Science has been investigating climate change for quite some time.
The American Institute of Physics traces the scientific analysis back at least to around 1900.
http://www.aip.org/...climate/timeline.htm


And in a sense, we do have laws against lying (under certain conditions) . . . its called perjury.

"Isn't there a contradiction here? Isn't civilization itself a clan?"

everybody has his better and worse angels. you decide to which you'll listen. you can be loyal to your wife or cheat on her. your word can be your bond, or you can tell the truth or not according to expediency. you can be brave and fight, or you can be a coward and run.

the mob is the clan. civilization is what happens when members of the mob decide there is something better than the mob, and choose to rise above it. there is a distinction.

we call it the age of reason, or the age of enlightenment, because men decided to elevate their thinking. the most obvious, apparent fruit of this is democracy. the very "secular humanists" "elite media" that gingrich rails against have as their antecedents thomas hobbes, john locke, et al, whom, if they were alive today, would join thomas paine and thomas jefferson and say, "what are you talking about, newt? secular humanism is not a term of derision to us. if you want to know why we call ourselves humanists, look up studia humanitatis; if you want to know why we call ourselves secular, it's because we honor the division of church and state, and between science and belief."

what you have to decide, as a conservative, as a christian, as a republican - and i'm guessing you're all of these - is whether you're a member of the mob, or whether reason and enlightenment elevate you above the mob. the way i'll know you're still a member of the mob is if and when you incorporate the entire conservative republican orthodoxy as a monolothic belief system - when drill baby drill, cold dead hands, no new taxes, and jesus is my savior, all coexist in the same brain. it's not that they're necessarily incongruous views - tho i believe they are - it's that when 50 or 100 million people all believe in the same exact set of arguably incongruous views, it begs credulity to think you're anything else but a blind, blithe member of the mob.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

The jumping to the conclusion part is the assumption that government intervention is necessary and appropriate.

Yeah, let's debate it for another 50 years. That's clearly a better solution.

Why do you guess this?

My thoughts here are from an unbiased observer, from a sociological, philosphical view. My responses are with respect to the behaviors of both sides, rather than the particulars of arguments themselves.

However, just because I disagree with you, you assume, I am "on the other side." This "for us or against us" mentality is largely what is at the heart of this and similar arguments. (oops, not "agreements")

Folks are seemingly stuck in binary thinking!

Here's a binary question for you - do you accept the scientific consensus? Yes or no?

there are more than two sides

there are crazy conservatives lying to you about climate science
crazy liberals lying to you about climate science

and experts just doing their job and telling you what the climate is doing

and everything in between

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Here's a binary question for you - do you accept the scientific consensus? Yes or no?

What is that consensus, specifically?

If you accept the scientific consensus (see below). What other vehicles for appropriate intervention are there? Certainly free market entities will get involved, but considering the scope of the problem, some government action would appear justified.

(Example of scientific consensus): Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified." (16 national academies of science)

Other expressions of the scientific consensus are available here: http://www.ucsusa.org/...ic-consensus-on.html

"Why do you guess this?"

if you'd like to deny that you're a conservative, a christian, and that you are or caucus with the republicans, here's your chance. otherwise, are you asking me to divulge your "tells"? ;-)

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I'm sorry. I wasn't clear. I really don't KNOW the science. I generally refrain from picking a side (because thats what it would be, 50/50 picking) I have no reason not to believe you or jackmott.

I was replying to your analogy. I see a lot of bad arguments from both sides. I generally have a distaste for bad arguments, because even a correct position can be undermined by a bad argument.

I know the talking points.

Don't play dumb. Just answer the question. Or don't, I don't really care.

Why don't you go ahead with this and show us how you think.

I'm not playing dumb. I want to know if this "consensus" you mention relates to global warming or the "solution."
Because THAT distinction has been my whole point.

Then again, I get the feeling that if you cannot express exactly what that consensus is, maybe there isn't one.
Or maybe you can't explain it. If you can't describe it, are you just going along with the general gut feeling (kool-aid) of your clan?

The unbought and unpaid by the oil industry people are the bought and paid for by the climate change / federal government people.

Slowman wrote:

i found it interesting that rick santorum referred to the global warming hoax last night. imagine that. even many of the deniers have stopped denying, and have reluctantly adopted a new position: yes, there's global warming, yes it's man made, yes it's primarily man made, but [fill in the blank].

Do you also find it interesting that many of the climate change advocates from years past have stopped believing? and have reluctantly adopted a new position: no, scientific evidence, in fact, does not support the assertion that there is global warming or that its man made.

Slowman wrote:

this is what i wrote about further up in this thread. i don't know you, but i guarantee that you're a conservative. this is the crazy thing about the american zeitgeist today. your religion is your political platform, just as it is with rick santorum. his religion informs his politics which, when aggregated with the other disparate groups that make up the republican constituency, feeds back into his religion. you've got this internal circle jerk going on in your head, and the reason you're a climate change denier is because your religion, politics and science all must parallel the views of the clan for you to survive.

This may be true of a lot of republicans, but to think that its not equally prevalent among democrats is naive at best, but probably ignorant and/ or narcissistic.



Thank you for pointing out that its not different with liberals. Which is why I cant understand why educated and well informed people still have these tired republican/democrat debates. I can honestly say I am neither. Both sides are bat shit crazy. Bush was worse than Clinton, and obama is worse than bush. No doubt in my mind, the next guy will be even worse.

and I dont see how the "conclusions and repercussions that flow from [republicans] is a lot more nonsensical - and dangerous" You have to be kidding me

Democrats are going to spend us into non-existence all the while lying to everyone by blaming on the "rich" who aren't paying their fair share and "military spending". What a F-ing joke. tax the rich a lot higher, its not even going to dent his deficits. and military spending?!? It's the biggest jobs program in the world. The only thing wrong with that from the democratic side is that the republicans beat them to the support of it. Democrats are perfectly willing to give money away to all sorts of people and programs, but, oh my, why do we need such a big military. Let's cut that and pay unemployment and foodstamp benefits to all the laid off defense sector employees and former soldiers... at least that way, they dont have to work for their money and we derive no benefit. That way they have to vote for us.

Wow. Talk about a tell. The third paragraph above belies the first paragraph.

---

___________________________
De que depende?

bring self aware is hard!

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

[I'm not playing dumb. I want to know if this "consensus" you mention relates to global warming or the "solution."
Because THAT distinction has been my whole point.

Then again, I get the feeling that if you cannot express exactly what that consensus is, maybe there isn't one.
Or maybe you can't explain it. If you can't describe it, are you just going along with the general gut feeling (kool-aid) of your clan?[/quote]


Just to check, do you also have doubt about the scientific consensus when it comes to the theory of evolution?

Except that I've never voted for a republican (which you are mistakenly implying I am). You quoted me without quoting what I was replying to. If Slowman were a gun toting creationist, I'd have had a rant about republicans. He was being the democrats version of a gun toting creationist, so I went off on his "nonsensical" party. But go ahead and think you're smarter than everyone else, just like the rest of the democrats do (oops, another tell. shoot)

So somehow you see the science that supports anthropogenic climate change as being bought and paid for by
the climate change / federal government people?

I suppose this factors into account the international scope of climate change / government people? Since climate change is supported by consensus world-wide, it would follow that its all part of a global conspiracy. That's logical and consistent with the fear of the one world government plot to undermine American supremacy.

I think your on to something or perhaps, on something. (Glued some tubulars lately?)

Could you please give the details about the former climate change advocates that are now deniers?

"Why don't you go ahead with this and show us how you think."

i'm happy to. but first, and for the record. and this is the third time i've asked you if you're a christian. three times is a charm on this one. are you going to match st. peter's record now with your third denial?

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman