Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience. - Part 1

[DMC]

The goalpost was "name a specific 'left' policy that was driven by religion.

Your dumb ass was asked this repeatedly, and you failed to do so.

"honest broker" fail

That wasn't what you were talking about. That was left poster B's misdirection therefore maybe his goal but not mine.

[DMC]

Pseudoscience is very often dressing up mysticism in fancy science-y words, i.e. Intelligent Design

Paranormal

[DMC]

was your literal response



im bored at this point. i can tell you are too given your random non sequiturs like brining up secular slaveowners as some attempted dig

and all this just so you can have a proper whataboutism... which would still be a whataboutism given the subject of this thread

You said I said ""but the left believes in god". I didn't say that. you say "was your literal response" and then post a quote where it doesn't say that. I said they all believe in invisible sky daddy. That's about as pseudoscientific as you can get.

Keep whiffing, Philo. Maybe one day, if you sling enough and declare premature victory often enough, you'll score.

[Th'Pusher]

You said I said ""but the left believes in god". I didn't say that. you say "was your literal response" and then post a quote where it doesn't say that. I said they all believe in invisible sky daddy. That's about as pseudoscientific as you can get.

Keep whiffing, Philo. Maybe one day, if you sling enough and declare premature victory often enough, you'll score.

You’re not actually delusional enough to think that any honest person who reads this thread believes you win any of these arguments, right?

[spurraider21]

You said I said ""but the left believes in god". I didn't say that. you say "was your literal response" and then post a quote where it doesn't say that. I said they all believe in invisible sky daddy. That's about as pseudoscientific as you can get.

Keep whiffing, Philo. Maybe one day, if you sling enough and declare premature victory often enough, you'll score.

Dem leaders/GOP leaders... all believe in invisible sky daddy.

Talk more about pseudoscientific bull .

his point was that people in government use pseudoscience to justify inaction re: climate change and your rebuttal was "well the other side believes in god too"

[DMC]

Compulsive lying doesn't work when the evidence is laid out for anyone to see.

I didn't mention "the other side" (which you conveniently left unbolded in your paraphrase)

A lawyer pretending words don't matter, that you can change wording and not change meaning... that's rich.

Not latching on to the fact that I was addressing the "pseudoscience" comment instead of the climate change part, that's just you being you.

RG said "the entire purpose of this thread is to expose pseudoscientific bull ". You ignored that and cherry picked something you felt you could actually argue successfully.

[DMC]

You’re not actually delusional enough to think that any honest person who reads this thread believes you win any of these arguments, right?

You're still sore over the woodshed incident, left poster D.

[spurraider21]

Compulsive lying doesn't work when the evidence is laid out for anyone to see.

I didn't mention "the other side" (which you conveniently left unbolded in your paraphrase)

A lawyer pretending words don't matter, that you can change wording and not change meaning... that's rich.

Not latching on to the fact that I was addressing the "pseudoscience" comment instead of the climate change part, that's just you being you.

RG said "the entire purpose of this thread is to expose pseudoscientific bull ". You ignored that and cherry picked something you felt you could actually argue successfully.

My post said your position was that “they believe in it “too”. Ergo both believe in it. It’s a paraphrase that kept the same meaning. And this is just you trying to spin off into another tangent

[Winehole23]

chain-smoking puny, self-declared victories.

derplike.

[DMC]

My post said your position was that “they believe in it “too”. Ergo both believe in it. It’s a paraphrase that kept the same meaning. And this is just you trying to spin off into another tangent

You were wrong. That wasn't my position. My position was that pseudoscience is prevalent in our leadership, even if their positions on issues are different. Paraphrasing when the quote is available is sloppy at best, but in your case it's intentionally dishonest because you only take cases you feel you can win.

[DMC]

My post said your position was that “they believe in it “too”. Ergo both believe in it. It’s a paraphrase that kept the same meaning. And this is just you trying to spin off into another tangent

But that wasn't my position. If you had a leg to stand on you wouldn't need to cherry pick parts of sentences to support your distraction and you wouldn't need to paraphrase by inserting your spin. My comment wasn't a rebuttal. It was directly responding to his comment using the same words "pseudoscientific bull ". Somehow you call that a rebuttal but had to paraphrase to get there because what you wanted me to mean wasn't apparent in the quote.

[RandomGuy]

You were wrong. That wasn't my position. My position was that pseudoscience is prevalent in our leadership, even if their positions on issues are different.

To some degree yes.

Does one side base their policies more on pseudoscience than the other? If so, which one and how did you determine that?

[DMC]

Spurraider21 is a huge got

Dude that's unfair

Oh nm I see you edited it.

[RandomGuy]

Dude that's unfair

Oh nm I see you edited it.

hit the first thing I saw. realized it was unfair and took it out. Replaced it with something more constructive.

[DMC]

To some degree yes.

Does one side base their policies more on pseudoscience than the other? If so, which one and how did you determine that?

The right is by default more uneducated and therefore easier to dupe. The leadership doesn't believe in most of the pseudoscience bull , they just profess to believe it so they can push whatever policy they want across. This isn't a new thing. Of course the left has segments of their base who are also prone to believing pseudoscientific bull so it's not exclusive to the right and it's not exclusive to divisive topics. The concept that everyone should be taken care of medically likely stems from theism. There's no scientific evidence to support moral directions. Many across the political spectrum look to their clergy to guide them on matters of morality. You can bet there's plenty who vote democratic that don't hold conventional left wing views but see some benefit from that party (or feel they are supposed to vote that way). Climate change is just one of the issues that people differ on and when you get above the poverty line is almost always a difference of who's willing to financially support the corrective measures vs the actual efficacy of those measures other than it being simply a political tool. No doubt climate change is happening, how much of a different large sacrifices will make is more of a political talking point.

[ChumpDumper]

"cocque"

You uneducated mother er.

Where did you go to school? I had to teach you the difference between imply and infer.

[spurraider21]

Where did you go to school? I had to teach you the difference between imply and infer.

PragerU

[RandomGuy]

Does one side base their policies more on pseudoscience than the other? If so, which one and how did you determine that?

The right is by default more uneducated and therefore easier to dupe. The leadership doesn't believe in most of the pseudoscience bull , they just profess to believe it so they can push whatever policy they want across. This isn't a new thing. Of course the left has segments of their base who are also prone to believing pseudoscientific bull so it's not exclusive to the right and it's not exclusive to divisive topics. The concept that everyone should be taken care of medically likely stems from theism. There's no scientific evidence to support moral directions. Many across the political spectrum look to their clergy to guide them on matters of morality. You can bet there's plenty who vote democratic that don't hold conventional left wing views but see some benefit from that party (or feel they are supposed to vote that way). Climate change is just one of the issues that people differ on and when you get above the poverty line is almost always a difference of who's willing to financially support the corrective measures vs the actual efficacy of those measures other than it being simply a political tool. No doubt climate change is happening, how much of a different large sacrifices will make is more of a political talking point.

It's the right that pushes for prayer in schools.
It's the right that uses religion as the basis for abortion policy.
It's the right that wants intelligent design taught as a viable scientific theory.
It's the right wants to tear down separation of church and state as an explicit goal.
It's the right that wants Israel policy be dictated by the Book of Revelation.
It's the right that wants climate change policy to be non-existent because you can't trust science.

The two aren't even close to be equivalent.

[DMC]

It's the right that pushes for prayer in schools.
It's the right that uses religion as the basis for abortion policy.
It's the right that wants intelligent design taught as a viable scientific theory.
It's the right wants to tear down separation of church and state as an explicit goal.
It's the right that wants Israel policy be dictated by the Book of Revelation.
It's the right that wants climate change policy to be non-existent because you can't trust science.

The two aren't even close to be equivalent.

You're using argument from consequences, but the consequences of the beliefs don't support or negate that they are still pseudoscientific beliefs.
These are all outcomes you don't want, but what in science says any of them are bad?

Also, most of what you posted has nothing to do with pseudoscience. If you want to scream out about how bad the right is, pretty sure everyone here knows how you feel already on these issues.

People who are truly religious use religion as the basis for their beliefs. Imagine that.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

Always funny reading people who masturbate onto their boxes of ammo give educated climate change takes based on propaganda facebook posts

[spurraider21]

You're using argument from consequences, but the consequences of the beliefs don't support or negate that they are still pseudoscientific beliefs.
These are all outcomes you don't want, but what in science says any of them are bad?

Also, most of what you posted has nothing to do with pseudoscience. If you want to scream out about how bad the right is, pretty sure everyone here knows how you feel already on these issues.

People who are truly religious use religion as the basis for their beliefs. Imagine that.

his original point was specifically about the consequence though, ie the inaction re: climate change

[DMC]

I showed what I was responding to. Create whatever imaginary scenario you like.

[DMC]

Always funny reading people who masturbate onto their boxes of ammo give educated climate change takes based on propaganda facebook posts

You should stop going to gay erotica sites it seems.

[RandomGuy]

You're using argument from consequences, but the consequences of the beliefs don't support or negate that they are still pseudoscientific beliefs.
These are all outcomes you don't want, but what in science says any of them are bad?

Also, most of what you posted has nothing to do with pseudoscience. If you want to scream out about how bad the right is, pretty sure everyone here knows how you feel already on these issues.

People who are truly religious use religion as the basis for their beliefs. Imagine that.

Not using an argument from consequences. https://yandoo.wordpress.com/2014/01...-consequences/
If you think so, feel free to try and restate that post into that form.

I was citing examples of the right using religion and pseudo-science to drive policies to bolster that case that the two ends of the spectrum are not close to equally bad. The right is way, way, worse.

I use religious stupidity/pseudoscience relatively interchangeably.

I generally assert "religion poisons everything".

[RandomGuy]

Always funny reading people who masturbate onto their boxes of ammo give educated climate change takes based on propaganda facebook posts

The thing that bugs me the most is that they say "climate change isnt' based on actual data" then simply go on to say "doing something about it would damage the economy".

I asked for some evidence about how exactly it would "damage the economy" and got one flawed non-peer reviewed study on PV in Spain that was... bad.

Best evidence we have is that lowering CO2 emissions would end up being vastly better for the economy than keeping carbon-intensive forms of energy. More efficiency, renewables, and other benefits stack up faster than the costs as far as I have been able to tell.