[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Russia - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Jan 19, 2022 - 9:47am
 
Bono has some explaining to do... - oldviolin - Jan 19, 2022 - 9:43am
 
Things You Thought Today - oldviolin - Jan 19, 2022 - 9:43am
 
The Dragon's Roots - oldviolin - Jan 19, 2022 - 9:40am
 
A lot of 'obscure' repetition lately? - oldviolin - Jan 19, 2022 - 9:29am
 
• • • The Mandela Effect • • • - oldviolin - Jan 19, 2022 - 9:26am
 
What Makes You Laugh? - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Jan 19, 2022 - 8:59am
 
Who is that guy? - oldviolin - Jan 19, 2022 - 8:25am
 
Wordle - daily game - ScottFromWyoming - Jan 19, 2022 - 8:15am
 
• • • BRING OUT YOUR DEAD • • •  - oldviolin - Jan 19, 2022 - 8:07am
 
COVID-19 - Steely_D - Jan 19, 2022 - 8:04am
 
Trump - Steely_D - Jan 19, 2022 - 8:03am
 
What is the meaning of this? - oldviolin - Jan 19, 2022 - 8:02am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Jan 19, 2022 - 7:57am
 
Race in America - black321 - Jan 19, 2022 - 6:42am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - sunybuny - Jan 19, 2022 - 6:14am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Jan 19, 2022 - 5:30am
 
Britain - Red_Dragon - Jan 19, 2022 - 4:57am
 
What happened to Radio Paradise? - ScottN - Jan 18, 2022 - 4:10pm
 
If not RP, what are you listening to right now? - black321 - Jan 18, 2022 - 3:10pm
 
Radio Paradise NFL Pick'em Group - GeneP59 - Jan 18, 2022 - 2:36pm
 
New Music - Red_Dragon - Jan 18, 2022 - 2:35pm
 
Beer - oldviolin - Jan 18, 2022 - 12:59pm
 
Pictures that are total crap - Manbird - Jan 18, 2022 - 12:44pm
 
Germany - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Jan 18, 2022 - 12:33pm
 
Coffee - Ohmsen - Jan 18, 2022 - 10:20am
 
Bowie fans, check this out - Ohmsen - Jan 18, 2022 - 10:10am
 
Floyd forum - Ohmsen - Jan 18, 2022 - 9:37am
 
Prog Rockers Anonymous - Ohmsen - Jan 18, 2022 - 9:32am
 
North Korea - Ohmsen - Jan 18, 2022 - 8:57am
 
How's the weather? - oldviolin - Jan 18, 2022 - 8:42am
 
Italy - Ohmsen - Jan 18, 2022 - 8:41am
 
Patrick Watson should play on RP - jsricher - Jan 18, 2022 - 8:39am
 
Food Democracy - miamizsun - Jan 18, 2022 - 4:16am
 
Annoying stuff. not things that piss you off, just annoyi... - miamizsun - Jan 18, 2022 - 3:57am
 
The Obituary Page - kurtster - Jan 17, 2022 - 8:30pm
 
Thank you, RP! - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jan 17, 2022 - 8:16pm
 
Poetry Forum - Antigone - Jan 17, 2022 - 1:30pm
 
Something for my fellow hippies. - haresfur - Jan 17, 2022 - 12:22pm
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - oldviolin - Jan 17, 2022 - 12:20pm
 
World Music - ScottFromWyoming - Jan 17, 2022 - 11:07am
 
The Dragons' Roost - triskele - Jan 17, 2022 - 10:00am
 
Sunrise, Sunset - ScottFromWyoming - Jan 17, 2022 - 6:50am
 
Religion - kurtster - Jan 17, 2022 - 12:12am
 
What Did You See Today? - Steely_D - Jan 16, 2022 - 8:26pm
 
volcano! - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Jan 16, 2022 - 11:56am
 
Mixtape Culture Club - Lazy8 - Jan 15, 2022 - 10:22pm
 
Climate Change - helenofjoy - Jan 15, 2022 - 1:21pm
 
See This Film - islander - Jan 15, 2022 - 11:34am
 
Florida - Red_Dragon - Jan 15, 2022 - 9:28am
 
Hard Core Trivia - Manbird - Jan 14, 2022 - 4:51pm
 
Yes - miamizsun - Jan 14, 2022 - 2:48pm
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - BillG - Jan 14, 2022 - 2:30pm
 
New RP listener - miamizsun - Jan 14, 2022 - 1:36pm
 
RightWingNutZ - Steely_D - Jan 14, 2022 - 12:44pm
 
Think About It - miamizsun - Jan 14, 2022 - 11:45am
 
Media Matters - Red_Dragon - Jan 14, 2022 - 11:38am
 
let it spin!! - oldviolin - Jan 14, 2022 - 10:46am
 
Is Wikipedia Objective? - miamizsun - Jan 14, 2022 - 10:17am
 
Remembering the Good Old Days - Steely_D - Jan 14, 2022 - 8:23am
 
Ukraine - black321 - Jan 14, 2022 - 8:11am
 
OUR CATS!! - sunybuny - Jan 14, 2022 - 5:52am
 
Baseball, anyone? - rgio - Jan 14, 2022 - 5:01am
 
Those Lovable Policemen - Lazy8 - Jan 13, 2022 - 9:46pm
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Jan 13, 2022 - 9:44pm
 
Automotive Lust - miamizsun - Jan 13, 2022 - 3:12pm
 
Play the Blues - rhahl - Jan 13, 2022 - 10:30am
 
Terrorist Watch! - Ohmsen - Jan 13, 2022 - 10:26am
 
WTF??!! - ScottFromWyoming - Jan 13, 2022 - 10:12am
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - fractalv - Jan 12, 2022 - 8:16pm
 
What the hell OV? - Manbird - Jan 12, 2022 - 3:39pm
 
Marijuana: Baked News. - Ohmsen - Jan 12, 2022 - 5:36am
 
Crazy conspiracy theories - miamizsun - Jan 12, 2022 - 5:00am
 
Dialing 1-800-Manbird - oldviolin - Jan 11, 2022 - 6:52pm
 
• • • Things Magicians Exclaim • • •  - Red_Dragon - Jan 11, 2022 - 6:37pm
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Climate Chaos Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Post to this Topic
islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 1, 2014 - 2:53pm

 kurtster wrote:

A fair question and an honest answer would certainly have to admit to it when dealing with matters of government.

But this is about about science where ideology has no honest place as a driver, imho.

The call is for government intervention using 'science' driven by ideology.  Not a sound method.

I'll refer to Dave's article (the actual source) on the Polar Bears ...

 “So, the global estimates were… ‘simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand’ and according to this statement, were never meant to be considered scientific estimates, despite what they were called, the scientific group that issued them, and how they were used,” Crockford said.

Yet these estimates were in fact represented as settled science and used as a major driver to push for government intervention.


 
Following an ideology doesn't make something wrong (or right). But refusing to look at evidence, and making your decisions based on obviously flawed information does.

I know you are trying to fall back to your default "I'm just asking questions" BS routine. But you aren't even doing that. You are spitballing and desperately hoping something will stick to the wall. You are out of legitimate ideas and your continued dancing around the wording on your various 'theories' makes you look like the court jester, not the wise sage.  Believe what you want, do what you want (within established boundaries), the rest of the planet is going to go try some stuff.  We may fail, we may succeed, but we are going to try. You and your merry band of contrarians have made yourselves as irrelevant as the dinosaurs.
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 1, 2014 - 1:38pm

 islander wrote:

Would your opposition to most things government not also be driven by ideology?

And I'm not saying that beliefs/opinions derived from ideology are wrong, just that they have to be backed by something other than faith.

 
A fair question and an honest answer would certainly have to admit to it when dealing with matters of government.

But this is about about science where ideology has no honest place as a driver, imho.

The call is for government intervention using 'science' driven by ideology.  Not a sound method.

I'll refer to Dave's article (the actual source) on the Polar Bears ...

 “So, the global estimates were… ‘simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand’ and according to this statement, were never meant to be considered scientific estimates, despite what they were called, the scientific group that issued them, and how they were used,” Crockford said.

Yet these estimates were in fact represented as settled science and used as a major driver to push for government intervention.

islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 1, 2014 - 1:19pm

 kurtster wrote:

I'm just asking the question, is there a double standard for when someone is a skeptic vs when they are a contrarian.

I really do believe that those pushing the call for government intervention are more driven by ideology than anything else. 

 
Would your opposition to most things government not also be driven by ideology?

And I'm not saying that beliefs/opinions derived from ideology are wrong, just that they have to be backed by something other than faith.
katzendogs

katzendogs Avatar

Location: Pasadena ,Texas
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 1, 2014 - 1:10pm

 kurtster wrote:

I'm just asking the question, is there a double standard for when someone is a skeptic vs when they are a contrarian.

I really do believe that those pushing the call for government intervention are more driven by ideology than anything else. 

 
Fair. I guess I get chaos confused with change! {#Doh}
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 1, 2014 - 12:58pm

 katzendogs wrote:

wbpit?

 
I'm just asking the question, is there a double standard for when someone is a skeptic vs when they are a contrarian.

I really do believe that those pushing the call for government intervention are more driven by ideology than anything else. 
katzendogs

katzendogs Avatar

Location: Pasadena ,Texas
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 1, 2014 - 12:53pm

 kurtster wrote:

Then when is being a skeptic legitimate in its own right ?

Only on subjects other than climate change ?  

Or is it dependent on ideology ?  Such as only liberals can be skeptical but a conservative can only be a contrarian ? 

 
wbpit?
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 1, 2014 - 12:52pm



Climate scientists slam Obama science czar’s
‘pseudo-science rambling’ on global warming




kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 1, 2014 - 12:27pm

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

You know, a dictionary is only one tool a person needs to make any sense of the words we read and use. Since, in this case, "denier" is shorthand for "climate change denier" and you are that, based on the expanded description at the link I shared. "Contrarians pose as skeptics, refusing to accept consensus conclusions in science on the ground that there is still some uncertainty."

 
Then when is being a skeptic legitimate in its own right ?

Only on subjects other than climate change ?  

Or is it dependent on ideology ?  Such as only liberals can be skeptical but a conservative can only be a contrarian ? 
DaveInVA

DaveInVA Avatar

Location: In a hovel in effluent Damnville, VA
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 1, 2014 - 11:12am

Scientists Admit Polar Bear Numbers Were Made Up To ‘Satisfy Public Demand’


islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 1, 2014 - 8:59am

 kurtster wrote:


And for questioning that so called truth, I am a denier of truth ?  I would say that those who accept that as the truth are denying science.  My understanding of science is that it is never settled; it is an ongoing process with endless questioning and review based on new discoveries. 


Tired of explaining it over and over (and over), but still willing to say "no, that's not how it works". Open for review and challenge != never settled.
ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 1, 2014 - 7:41am

 kurtster wrote:

Thanks for playing ...

de·ni·er

 noun di-ˈnÄ«(-ə)r, dē-
 
 
:  one who denies <deniers of the truth>


Denier of the truth ?  Truth is a really loaded word in this context and in the application of the discussion of climate.

Just whose truth are we accepting ?  In the case of Climate, its the truth that the "science is settled", to quote a well known world leader.

That says to me that the truth is that ... we know all we need to know or will ever need to know in order to take action.

And for questioning that so called truth, I am a denier of truth ?  I would say that those who accept that as the truth are denying science.  My understanding of science is that it is never settled; it is an ongoing process with endless questioning and review based on new discoveries. 

I simply disagree that we know all we need to know upon which the so called truth is established.  Yet because of that I am rightly called a denier of truth ?

Love it ...
 
You know, a dictionary is only one tool a person needs to make any sense of the words we read and use. Since, in this case, "denier" is shorthand for "climate change denier" and you are that, based on the expanded description at the link I shared. "Contrarians pose as skeptics, refusing to accept consensus conclusions in science on the ground that there is still some uncertainty."
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 1, 2014 - 7:14am

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

A) I don't know why you're pointing out the definition of a common word to Steeler. But then you seem to be saying your use of it is the more "benign" definition 1 when, as you use it, it is clearly understood by all that you mean definition 2 (quoted here). You cannot disparage someone with one definition of a word, then claim another definition when challenged. It's not only disingenuous, it also doesn't make sense when you re-read your posts with definition 1. "You're a denier!" "I am outraged! How can you say such a thing?" "What? I only meant that you're a small French coin."

B) I don't need a benign definition because altho I personally don't think I've used it to describe you, it fits as-is. If you're slicing the definition of "denier" very thinly so that it doesn't apply to you, okay. But I think a broader description fits you fine. I'm also fairly sure you're trying to define your position so that it doesn't click on many of the points in this description of a denier, but so far, for me, it's not setting you apart.

 
Thanks for playing ...

de·ni·er

 noun di-ˈnÄ«(-ə)r, dē-
 
 
:  one who denies <deniers of the truth>


Denier of the truth ?  Truth is a really loaded word in this context and in the application of the discussion of climate.

Just whose truth are we accepting ?  In the case of Climate, its the truth that the "science is settled", to quote a well known world leader.

That says to me that the truth is that ... we know all we need to know or will ever need to know in order to take action.

And for questioning that so called truth, I am a denier of truth ?  I would say that those who accept that as the truth are denying science.  My understanding of science is that it is never settled; it is an ongoing process with endless questioning and review based on new discoveries. 

I simply disagree that we know all we need to know upon which the so called truth is established.  Yet because of that I am rightly called a denier of truth ?

Love it ...

haresfur

haresfur Avatar

Location: The Golden Triangle
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 1, 2014 - 7:00am

SCIENTISTS CONSIDER NEW NAMES FOR CLIMATE CHANGE


ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 1, 2014 - 6:38am

 kurtster wrote:

Really ?

A)   Agenda: a plan or goal that guides someone's behavior and that is often kept secret

B)   Do you have a benign definition of denier ?

 
A) I don't know why you're pointing out the definition of a common word to Steeler. But then you seem to be saying your use of it is the more "benign" definition 1 when, as you use it, it is clearly understood by all that you mean definition 2 (quoted here). You cannot disparage someone with one definition of a word, then claim another definition when challenged. It's not only disingenuous, it also doesn't make sense when you re-read your posts with definition 1. "You're a denier!" "I am outraged! How can you say such a thing?" "What? I only meant that you're a small French coin."

B) I don't need a benign definition because altho I personally don't think I've used it to describe you, it fits as-is. If you're slicing the definition of "denier" very thinly so that it doesn't apply to you, okay. But I think a broader description fits you fine. I'm also fairly sure you're trying to define your position so that it doesn't click on many of the points in this description of a denier, but so far, for me, it's not setting you apart.
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 1, 2014 - 5:34am

 steeler wrote:

Seems to me that labeling those who take the opposite position in a debate as having an "agenda" — or being manipulated by those with said agenda — is more akin to using the "most pejorative term possible in a debate."  It typically implies the use of deception.

 
Really ?

agen·da

 noun É™-ˈjen-də

: a list of things to be considered or done

: a plan or goal that guides someone's behavior and that is often kept secret

Full Definition of AGENDA

:  a list or outline of things to be considered or done <agendas of faculty meetings>
 
:  an underlying often ideological plan or program  <agenda>


Do you have a benign definition of denier ?


steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: May 26, 2014 - 8:06am

 kurtster wrote:

kurtster wrote:

 The narrative is that I and people like me are dismissed in the most pejorative term possible in a debate, a denier.  On the subjects I mentioned above, I do not look at the people who disagree with me as deniers.  The way that the term denier has evolved, it infers the worst.  It brings the attachment of racism, phobiaism of many kinds, narrow thinking, faulty thinking based upon the sources used, and worst of all intolerance of the thought being put forth.

When denier is invoked, it shuts down all reasonable debate and dialogue.  This thread isn't for the purpose of denying or calling those who disagree with what I might post or others, deniers.  It, in my mind is about pointing out the agenda of those who call it "settled science".

I do not know of anyone who thinks that the climate is not changing.  The term denier claims that though and all the other things I previously mentioned.  Those who put forth arguments that end in denier are executing an agenda and twisting their "science" to that end.  Marx laid out the ground work for social change back when he was just getting started using ecology as the most effective and most durable means to the end.

I would call myself skeptical of the story being told by those who support the cap and trade scenario.  Its an excuse to dole out money from slush funds and pour them into losing ideas like Solyndra and raise taxes among other things.

 
Seems to me that labeling those who take the opposite position in a debate as having an "agenda" — or being manipulated by those with said agenda — is more akin to using the "most pejorative term possible in a debate."  It typically implies the use of deception.


kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: May 25, 2014 - 10:39pm

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

So if you're not a "denier," what are you? Does the term somehow not apply to you? I get that you don't want to be lumped in with a bunch of flat earth tinfoil hat chemtrail paranoids but the term really is a blanket term for anyone who sees no reason to worry, or, if they do worry, see no reason to think anything can be done.

 
kurtster wrote:

 The narrative is that I and people like me are dismissed in the most pejorative term possible in a debate, a denier.  On the subjects I mentioned above, I do not look at the people who disagree with me as deniers.  The way that the term denier has evolved, it infers the worst.  It brings the attachment of racism, phobiaism of many kinds, narrow thinking, faulty thinking based upon the sources used, and worst of all intolerance of the thought being put forth.

When denier is invoked, it shuts down all reasonable debate and dialogue.  This thread isn't for the purpose of denying or calling those who disagree with what I might post or others, deniers.  It, in my mind is about pointing out the agenda of those who call it "settled science".

I do not know of anyone who thinks that the climate is not changing.  The term denier claims that though and all the other things I previously mentioned.  Those who put forth arguments that end in denier are executing an agenda and twisting their "science" to that end.  Marx laid out the ground work for social change back when he was just getting started using ecology as the most effective and most durable means to the end.

I would call myself skeptical of the story being told by those who support the cap and trade scenario.  Its an excuse to dole out money from slush funds and pour them into losing ideas like Solyndra and raise taxes among other things.
aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


Posted: May 22, 2014 - 7:30am

 kurtster wrote:

 the group think rush to judgment  


Sort of like how the wise people at the Lexington Herald-Leader strove to avoid a rush to judgement in determining whether they ought to cover the civil rights movement in their newspaper.


ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: May 21, 2014 - 5:42pm

 kurtster wrote:

Its been great, too.  Kinda how I hoped it would go.

But backscroll in that thread I linked to.  It seems that every other word in there is denier.  Pardon the hyperbole, but the usage of the term is overwhelming in there. 

 
So if you're not a "denier," what are you? Does the term somehow not apply to you? I get that you don't want to be lumped in with a bunch of flat earth tinfoil hat chemtrail paranoids but the term really is a blanket term for anyone who sees no reason to worry, or, if they do worry, see no reason to think anything can be done.
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: May 21, 2014 - 5:14pm

 DaveInVA wrote: 
That's only what they have been calling those of us on the wrong side of their argument for years now.  There are countless examples.  I posted a few here over the years.  Just spun my wheels doing it.
Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next