Reply With Quote
Good read OP. Thanks for sharing.
Obviously not. It is the nominalization of the word 'deny' and there are people such as yourself who deny the science of global warming and instead revert to sophistry.
What is stupid is crying about it. If you don't like being labeled as such most intellectually honest people I know stop the behavior. Not you though.
Good read OP. Thanks for sharing.
Nope.
There is a difference between a rational consideration of available evidence, and the kinds of irrational pseudoscientific bull that people like you engage in.
This requires a term to differentiate between the two.
I will simplify it for you.
The graph you posted was dishonest, and you did not really apply enough reasonable skepticism to be able to figure out that it was dishonest, but rather accepted the lie at face value, and parrotted it without questioning.
Major victory? no. Par for the course? yes.
Where is this so-called "dishonest" graph?
You are the shrill. You cannot debate me with any intelligence on the subject. All you do is appeal to authority.
Absolutely, but then it's stupid people using the term.
climate change, and climate denier are framing propaganda.
people poll much worse on "global warming" than on "climate change"
anthropogenic global warming denier is specific.
btw, BigCarbon-puppet Inhofe to Senate science committee is as bad-faith, -all-y'all inflammatory as sending war-monger/neo-con/UN-hater John Bolton to the UN.
"Climate denier" and "climate skeptic" are both idiotic because they imply someone denies there's a climate. The correct terms would be "climate change denier" or "climate change skeptic".
Even those terms imply that people don't believe the climate changes and ignores the theory that people are skeptical of. Really should be "manmade global warming denier/skeptic" to be correct.
you've been framed, willfully, by Luntz and BigCarbon.
climate change is neutral, ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING, AGW, is the correct phrase and em PHA sis.
Even that doesn't go far enough, because pretty much everyone knows that climate changes and that humans cause some of it. Should be "we're all gonna die if we don't drastically reduce carbon dioxide emissions skeptic/denier". Has a nice ring to it.
I don't just namedrop UW or PSU. I pull the relevant material from the articles and studies and post it. You used a solubility chart of seawater in beakers to describe the behavior of the ocean. I used the PSU engineering model as a compare and contrast tool to show your Dr EZ-Bake analysis for what it is.
I have a very very good memory, dip , and then of course there is the search function. You really want to be embarrassed again?
What do feedback mean?
This is horse and the insurance risk assessors are beginning to put actual dollar amounts to things. It's why they are so adamant about getting done.
You keep spamming this about climate denier meaning 'denies climate' demonstrating your willful ignorance. Someone with a bit of nuance and not regurgitating shill takes would note that it could be a denial of a facet of climate ie the human factor.
You aren't even arguing the central theme. You are ing about window dressing. Just like a sophist piece of .
Wait, insurance companies are using climate change as an excuse to raise rates? Say it ain't so.
And yet
You ignore try to ignore this for a bit then. . .Please explain the source of the second graph and how it was plotted as the values do not correspnd to the same data points.
Here is NASA's
Here is the explanation of their methodology.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110113/
You are aware of that all 50 states have insurance commissions that insurance companies have to justify any rate hikes with actuarial proof (re: quantified risk assessment from real data)?
They are using that as the basis to raise rates and that is literally where the rubber meets the road in getting red states along the coasts to finally see the light. More and more areas are being deemed uninsurable further underscoring the point.
There has been quite a bit of pushback from deniers especially in Florida and the Carolinas yet the claims being paid are what they are and the rates were upheld. When you are forced to move or get a denial of coverage on your homeowners policy because you are on the coast, it is very compelling.
Yes, Fuzzy, I misspoke when I said the GRAPH was from BEST, but the DATA is from BEST. Both the source of the DATA and the source of the GRAPH (nothing more than a specific presentation of the DATA) are clearly displayed on the graph.
Seems that all your ing about that graph was misplaced.
The lib term for "realists who haven't fallen for the scam."
No, when I asked you where you got it from you told me BEST. This was after pointing out that it was from some mailer.
You do this all the time when you present a source that you know is biased but you want to be accepted. When you do it I come out with the sophist piece of angle.
You can characterize it however you like but it is what it is.
That "good, bad, ugly" theme is worn out completely. People need to get some new .
agreed, from the Repugs, there is only bad and ugly.
Too bad they took over eh?
yep, they'll up everything they touch, and up everything the Dems have done, and up everything Obama will do in the next two years. They've been doing since 1994. up everything except that which protects/enriches/enables the 1%/BigCorps.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
