Reply With Quote
If they were, this thread wouldn't exist.
Grandiose.All the facts are easily verified.
No, they're not.
Last edited by Winehole23; 07-03-2009 at 12:32 PM.
If they were, this thread wouldn't exist.
DarrinS, who's been studying this topic for years, proves yet again that he either can't or won't answer simple, direct questions that posters put to him.
His method is anti-Socratic. The questions all lead to wrong turns.
The student must intuit the mind of the master, zen masterishly, without any help at all from the master.
Last edited by Winehole23; 07-03-2009 at 01:03 PM.
It's a weird abortion of Socratic questioning.
What's the fun in giving answers when you can simply pose more questions?
.
When the student reaches the same conclusions as the master, his own eyes will be blinded by the insight he receives, the better to guide others on the path of true enlightenment...
A typical DarrinS post impersonates the object of its disdain.
He holds his own impersonation up for public ridicule, while maintaining an ironic and superior aloofness from his own handiwork and what it implies. In advance, he is prepared to pick off any questioner as being impertinent.
*I never said that...*
It'd be nice if Darrin just told us what he really means, rather than continually hiding behind banners and bookmarks and, uh, artistic conceits.
No proof but some idiots watch a freaken movie that Gore made or reads a book and they act as if it is real. So ing ridiculous. You people should be ashamed of yourselves for believing this nonsense and even more important voting for the leader of the free world because he may change the light bulbs in the White House. Go Green. Grow up tree huggers!
That happens. It's pretty -y no matter who does it.No proof but some idiots watch a freaken movie that Gore made or reads a book and they act as if it is real. So ing ridiculous.
I used to believe in AGW and didn't even question the science, etc. I've lived in Southern California and have seen the smog first-hand, so it all made perfect sense to me. But then it started to get weird. By that, I mean that it started getting rammed down our throats. Why the hard sell? I always get su ious when I get the whole "What will it take to get you in a car TODAY" treatment. Then came Al Gore's Oscar-winning Power Point sci-fi docudrama. Watching those Oscars, with Leonardo Dicaprio saying "You are a true champion for the cause", I got the feeling I was watching a Scientology convention. Then, there was a distinct, but subtle, terminology tweak from "global warming" to "climate change". Hmmm. And anyone who questions the science of consensus is labeled a "denier". Is that anything like being a holocaust denier? It's very insulting.
So, I still drive a car that gets good gas mileage. I still recycle. I turn off lights when I'm not using them. I'm not wasteful, in general. I just don't buy into the hysteria.
Nice post, D.
No pimpslap necessary. That's a straight up opinion. Short, clear and personal. That's much more personable than your pomo-irony gargoyle, IMO. I could begin to agree with you a little bit, now.
lol at you chumps getting taken on the greatest human manufactured scam of this century.
Please don't be so gullible in the next life. WH, find yourself one of dem' der' big city fancy words to play off the embarrassment.
I don't know. Are you carrying their brief?
Or were you slyly comparing the consensus on climate to denying the holocaust?
Personally, I'd rather be labeled a flat-Earther than a denier.
Dennis Miller pretty much sums up my feelings on the religion of catastrophic AGW.
I'm not sure what you think I've fallen for.
I'm a declared agnostic on the AGW question, and leave the field to the putative experts. I will be dead when the definitive science is written.
I think I hate AGW threads almost as much as I hate 9/11 threads, and in a very similar way.
I don't think they're similar at all. There are intelligent people on both sides of the AGW argument.
Eh, Dennis Miller.
I guess he was just a placeholder for Tony Kornheiser.
No doubt. My own observation went to state of mind...
In all frankness, I'm rooting for heavy casualties on both sides.
The Obama Inquisition on climate change
Barack Obama promised to return science to its “rightful place” in government, but at least on climate change, it seems that Obama has the Inquisition in mind as the government model. When a dissenting voice at the EPA warned that the global-warming theories on which Obama had predicated his policies were falling apart, the administration did not champion a scientific approach to the debate. Instead, it took the ages-old method of silencing the scientist, as Kimberly Strassel reports:
[O]ne of President Barack Obama’s first acts was a memo to agencies demanding new transparency in government, and science. The nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Lisa Jackson, joined in, exclaiming, “As administrator, I will ensure EPA’s efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and program, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency.” In case anyone missed the point, Mr. Obama took another shot at his predecessors in April, vowing that “the days of science taking a backseat to ideology are over.”
Except, that is, when it comes to [Alan] Carlin, a senior analyst in the EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics and a 35-year veteran of the agency. In March, the Obama EPA prepared to engage the global-warming debate in an astounding new way, by issuing an “endangerment” finding on carbon. It establishes that carbon is a pollutant, and thereby gives the EPA the authority to regulate it — even if Congress doesn’t act.
Around this time, Mr. Carlin and a colleague presented a 98-page analysis arguing the agency should take another look, as the science behind man-made global warming is inconclusive at best. The analysis noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend. It pointed out problems with climate models. It highlighted new research that contradicts apocalyptic scenarios. “We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA,” the report read.
The response to Mr. Carlin was an email from his boss, Al McGartland, forbidding him from “any direct communication” with anyone outside of his office with regard to his analysis. When Mr. Carlin tried again to disseminate his analysis, Mr. McGartland decreed: “The administrator and the administration have decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. . . . I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.” …
Mr. McGartland blasted yet another email: “With the endangerment finding nearly final, you need to move on to other issues and subjects. I don’t want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research etc, at least until we see what EPA is going to do with Climate.” Ideology? Nope, not here. Just us science folk. Honest.
Carlin’s comments didn’t “help the legal or policy case” for the Obama administration? Actually, Carlin’s scientific analysis undermined the entire reason for those legal and policy choices. The effort to silence Carlin didn’t come because the EPA and the White House could easily refute the analysis. They silenced Carlin because they couldn’t refute it.
Now that Carlin has blown the whistle, the Obama administration has embarked on another ages-old strategy: character assassination. They have dismissed Carlin as an economist, when he actually has a degree in physics — from CalTech. They have derided his work as “sham science,” even though it relied on peer-reviewed studies. They’ve done everything but actually use the scientific method to rebut Carlin, which demonstrates the commitment they have to the “rightful place” of science when it comes to policy in this administration.
Mic e has done great work on this topic, and has a video of Carlin speaking earlier this week. Be sure to keep up with the story there.
Inquisition. Is that a technical term?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
