in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000. NOTE: That is NOT
me pictured at left. :)
| Fox NY | Oookay: ‘Hologram’ to greet and guide travelers at N.Y. airports |
0 |
| John Nolte | 0 | |
| The Hill | Propaganda: HHS signs $20M PR contract to promote healthcare law |
0 |
| CNN | 0 | |
| ABC News | Pushback: Swinging at Bain, Obama Ignores What Private Equity Is |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
"Diplomacy":
"People are saying what in the world is going on with North Carolina, we look like Mississippi." - NC Gov. Bev Perdue (D) on the passage of Amendment One, 5-11-12
About that Guardian story on AEI trying to ‘buy off’ climate scientists re: the IPCC report
The usual suspects are beside themselves with glee over this Guardian report from Friday in which Guardian science correspondent Ian Sample reports that scientists have been offered cash from AEI to take a critical look at the ‘comprehensive’ IPCC report on global warming.
Jonathan Adler, writing at the Volokh Conspiracy, disputes the sensationalistic arguments about what AEI’s agenda is. The comments section of that post is especially interesting, as it involves AEI Resident Fellow and Director of the AEI Liability Project Ted Frank‘s defense of AEI and disputing that everyone at AEI ‘thinks the same’, along with other anti-hysterians who are not backing down from the gw alarmists in the thread who don’t agree with Adler’s disputing of the Guardian story.
By the way, did you know this story from the Guardian, which has been presented as new ‘revealing’ news, is not new news at all? AEI put out the solicitation for scientists willing to critically examine the IPCC report – back in July.
Related: Ann Althouse examines the way the media goes the way of emotion-based journalism by using pictures of supposedly helpless polar bears on melting ice caps, which ‘shows’ us that ‘global warming’ is even hurting the poor animals(!!).
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Don’t deal with the substance! Always attack the messenger and impugn their motives.
See… IPCC is all good. The scientists work for free and do not have an agenda. They are pure. Scientists with opposing points of view (and substance remaining unexamined) are not pure.
AEI was not offering money for somebody to LIE. They were offering money for scientists to do a job. It’s like getting a second opinion from another doctor but the job is complex and requires tons of time – what doctor is going to do that for free as it displaces his/her normal working hours and pay.
On this issue I see more and more failure of perspective and more and more negligence than ever.
No matter how you spin it, the AEI buy-off offer and those who attempt to defend it as legitimate truth-seeking is simply intellectually dishonest. The Volokh Conspiracy apology says outright:
In other words, it’s not necessary to “tailor” anyone’s views when the AEI is specifically seeking comments from critics. If the AEI effort were truly a dispassionate search for the truth, they would not be going into it with an ax to grind with the IPCC. But as the AEI letter provided as an example says:
It’s a free society, and the AEI is entitled to its opinion that the IPCC is biased and unfair. But let’s not pretend that statements like the one above don’t indicate that the AEI has its own bias, or that its campaign is a fair and dispassionate search for truth. They’re offering money specifically for statements that are critical of the IPCC, just like the Guardian said. They wrote their appeals in a way to try to soften the blatancy of their bias, but it’s still pretty blatant all the same. Anyone on the other side of the debate who conducted themselves with such an air of shameless prejudice would be pilloried, and rightly so.
Why is it “buying” to pay for research. Do they think these guys write for free? I wrote an article for Lutheran Libraries years ago and got paid $50. I wrote an article for the Columbus Dispatch once and they paid me.
The problem is that the AEI is masquerading their political campaign as though it were part of a legitimate scientific debate. Like I said, they’re entitled to their own opinion—biased though it may be—but they should be honest and up-front that they are involved in politics, not science. The work that the AEI is soliciting has no scientific review process and doesn’t follow any standards of professional ethics. While the anti-intellectuals who post here like to denigrate real science, the fact is that there are few disciplines in which participants are held to such high ethical standards.
No legitimate scientific funding organization like the National Science Foundation, for example, would ever give money to a scientist to produce a pre-determined result. One of the main objectives of experimental design in the real world of science is to remove bias. So if you want to measure the average temperature of the earth, for example, you sample temperatures around the globe, not just in Las Vegas or the South Pole. The care with which real scientists go about their work seems to be lost on people here. To compare real science with political propagandists who go out specifically looking for pre-determined results is frankly about as ignorant—or as disingenuous—as it gets.
You have to understand, Norma. To True gw Believers, any funded contrary research is ‘propaganda’ while any funded research which backs up their claims is ‘unassailable fact.’ We’re to believe that there is no underhanded agenda whatsoever on the part of the doomsday crowd, but that the skeptics are nothing but nefarious and scheming, motivated only by cold hard cash.
The issue, Sister, is that one side makes extraordinary efforts to be dispassionate and neutral—letting the chips (i.e. the scientific data)—fall where they will. The other side has no professional ethical standards and no review process, and pays its funding specifically to support its political bias. Like I said, no legitimate scientific funding agency would ever pay to support work that had a pre-determined outcome. However, that’s precisely what the AEI is doing. You can pretend that there’s no difference, but to do so is either ignorant or disingenuous.
If the AEI wants to enter into the legitimate scientific debate, then they can do so through the proper channels: publishing in peer-reviewed journals. Because most of the work that’s been put forth to debunk man-made global warming can’t pass scientific muster, they’ve been forced to try to circumvent the world of legitimate science. What they’re doing instead is PR. Let’s not confuse these very different modes of communication.
“The issue, Sister, is that one side makes extraordinary efforts to be dispassionate and neutral—letting the chips (i.e. the scientific data)—fall where they will.”
LOL. Yes, I’ve heard the True Believer motivations are only pure and altuistic, while the other side’s are supposedly not motivated by anything but politics, power, and cash, Bob. Try that line on someone else who you might be able to pass it off on, ok? As the old saying goes, I may have been born at night, but not last night. The fact of the matter is that this is NOT just about AEI, but proving that there is NOT a consensus on this issue, contrary to the assertions of the ‘pure and noble’ alarmist crowd, because if there was, we wouldn’t see the widespread disagreements we do today – that is, the disagreements that haven’t been stifled by attempts at silencing skeptics. Gosh, you’d think if the ‘evidence’ ‘spoke for itself’ that alarmists wouldn’t be so hell bent on intimidating those who disagree with them, would you? Yes, alarmists are all for ‘letting the chips fall where they will’ – and I’m Queen Elizabeth.
Did you know polar bears can swim for hundreds of miles? I blogged about this the other day. Does this picture convince you about global warming? I’m still waiting for some convincing evidence. I’m keeping an open mind, but really this “science” of showing a few before and after pictures doesn’t win me over.
Let’s see… Who to believe? 2500 scientific experts from 130 different countries, or the 3 scientists the AEI pays to write an essay (not perform research) to have a “policy-relevant” “discussion” (with who?) in under 10,000 words. Seriously.
One can make an easy and obvious conclusion why an oil company funded public policy institute might pay to attempt to influence policy, but what “underhanded agenda” can the IPCC possibly have, ST? Let me guess – they want more research money, because we all know they’re getting rich off their research grants and they’d all go hungry if GW was somehow scientifically debunked tomorrow.
The whole purpose of these paid essays are to make it appear as though there is no consensus in the issue.
It’s painfully obvious that to Bob, and many like him, AGW is a religion, not a science. They have the same level of fanaticism for it that Islamic fundamentalists do for sawing people’s heads off and stoning women for showing their ankles in public. He, and others of his ilk, will never discuss the science, the uncertainties, anything of substance, they will only lie and dissemble and cast aspersions on the credibility and honesty of people far more honest and competent than they are. Here’s a clue, if all your opponent in a “debate” can do is whine on and on about “consensus” and how unethical and incompetent anyone who disagrees is, you know which side to believe.
Bob is fond of quoting that “study” in Science where a “social scientist” reviewed 928 global warming climatology papers, actually just the abstracts, and said that there was not one paper that disagreed. After this shocking result, another social scientist repeated her work, 13 papers didn’t even have abstracts, and out of the 915 remaining papers, only 13 actually supported the cause of anthropogenic global warming explicitly. What’s shocking is that Science actually participated in this disgrace, which says something not very good about their editorial and review process.
If you look around, there are tons of people pointing out the mistakes, misrepresentations, and outright lies in the AGW and IPCC mantras. Here’s an interesting one:
But, expect Bob and his fellow travelers to get more and more strident in the next year or so, because scientifically the wheels are coming off the AGW bus. Whether or not they will be successful in foisting off this socialist wet dream on the world is open to question, but given the viciousness of their tactics, the lack of educational level of most people, and the stultifying bias of the MSM and our wonderful liberal politicians, I’m not confident that the truth will prevail.
Let’s see… Who to believe? 2500 scientific experts from 130 different countries, or the 3 scientists the AEI pays to write an essay
Lindzen, who did an excellent debate on Larry King on CNN, points out:
More lies, more distortions, more BS from the pro-AGW crowd, who have the audacity to impugn other people’s credibility.
Gosh, tom, it’d be real easy for you guys if all you had to battle were ‘three scientists from AEI’ but it’s not. Since big numbers seem to impress you, I have no doubt you’ll be impressed by these.
“Consensus” on global warming? Think. again.
Personally, I find it hard to imagine that Sister would actually agree with any information that is perceived to come from “the left”, or smacks of “Liberalism”, regardless of whether it might be correct or incorrect.
The assumption will be that it is incorrect because it’s a “liberal” idea. It deals with the environment, right? Thus it’s a Liberal issue, therefore is MUST be incorrect. Nefas Ergo Sum
Would you like to talk about the controversy surrounding the global warming issue itself, “David @ SP”, or do you want to make it personal by making this an ad hominem argument against me, as if this issue were about me? If it’s the former, go for it, but if it’s the latter, save it.
Severian, anyone who dismisses the institutions of mainstream science, from which the IPCC draws all of its research, as a “socialist wet dream” has declared themselves to be outside of that mainstream. Let’s see, there’s legitimate science, and then there’s . . . something else. You also apparently don’t have a clue as to what “socialist” is, other than its use as a meaningless pejorative by wingnuts.
Revisiting the Science literature review, I’m not in a position to investigate the counter claims you mention about the 928 papers (you don’t provide a reference for it). Even taking it on face value as you presented it, where a more selective criterion required that the papers “actually supported the cause of anthropogenic global warming explicitly” (because the papers may present data that supported the theory of man-made global warming without saying explicitly that they did), then that leaves us with the following: 13 papers that “explicitly” supported man-made global warming vs. 0 that disputed it. Let’s see—the score is 13-0. That looks like a shut-out for proponents of man-made global warming. We win, you lose.
And this is just typical of the disingenuous BS that you guys keep trying to foist. You and your bogus pseudo-science can’t make the grade to get published and debated within the realm of real science. You’re left bitterly condemning the mainstream scientific establishment while trying to sneak dribs and drabs of gussied-up PR as though it were legitimate research. You nit-pick individual pieces of work here and there as though it countered a plethora of other work, done independently and unimpeachably, that says the same things. It’s just not gonna fly.
David @ Sp ridiculously states:
Now see there is the difference between you and ST and the rest of us, we automatically discount any information just because of it comes from a liberal or the left. We will look at it, disect it and talk about it…while and others on the left have this nasty habit of attacking credibility and not the facts that are put in front of you.
You want to talk about the information provided, great, but to attack the host on her view thinking that she is the same as some liberals and lefties out there that attack the person and not the substance of the arguement, you are wrong.
You owe her an apology.
Intelligenti pauca
Typing too fast and left the DON’T out of the above phrase:
The trackback to a post by Flopping Aces, at the top of this thread, gets Severian’s coveted “two thumbs up” award for summarizing the issue, including the fact that the IPCC report actually has reduced both the certainty and the magnitude of the “problem,” in a clear, concise, and easy to understand way.
Bob has credentials (what are they bob) as he is the arbiter of what is legitimate science. He says, “anyone who dismisses the institutions of mainstream science, from which the IPCC draws all of its research, as a “socialist wet dream” has declared themselves to be outside of that mainstream. Let’s see, there’s legitimate science, and then there’s . . . something else.”
Thanks for the judgment now share with us your credentials for making such a statement. Or… put the big government socialist pipe down. Last hit for you.
Norma wrote, “Do they think these guys write for free?You and your bogus pseudo-science can’t make the grade to get published and debated within the realm of real science. . Bob – dismiss and ignore all you want . As I said at the top never deal with the substance. Negligence is easy isn’t it????
I think there is consensus here by the way Bob that you are negligent!! Must be a FACT! Consensus equals FACT right?
Now that we have a consensus let’s take a leftist approach to the problem. Let’s censor your speech. Hey, I’m liking this consensus and subsequent leftist policy stuff. Let’s censor Bob government folks!! We have a consensus that he is negligent.
I have reviewed Baklava and find him competent and very knowledgeable.
He has now been ‘peer reviewed’.
[laughs]
At one time leeching was peer reviewed and had a consensus too. I bet the list of stupid things that science peer reviewed and were in agreement with is quite long. But of all the scientific stupidity leeching would top that list. – Lorica
You know what’s funny (or not so funny) Sanity?
There is nobody on our side saying there is a “consensus” that global warming is not man made and additionally nobody on our side is dismissing all of the substance of the IPCC science.
They are all saying hey folks there is additional information that should be considered. It shouldn’t be ignored or dismissed by the negligent bob’s of the world with no credentials.
I love science.
Let’s talk about the IPCC, shall we?
The IPCC is an organization created by the WMO and UNEP. This alone is suspect to me, becasue basically it is a United nations Program. The UN isn’t exactly known for their integrity. I find it a bit disturbing that any organization related to the UN is supposed to be looked upon as either being objective or principaled.
First here is an interesting document regarding the IPCC. note that individual governements can contribute to the IPCC. So for example if China is a major contributor, since they are exempt from Kyoto isn’t that a bit suspect? The documnets presented by the IPCC places major preasure on the US to join Kyoto, further weaking our economic reserve.
Second, Dr. Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, the cheif of the IPCC, participated in consumer boycotts against Exxon Mobile. This seem to me as a political motivation, not exactly “scientificly pure”.
Also Pachauri is exectutive director of TERI- an enviromental organization that has a vested intersted in India. Yes, India is also exempt from the Kyoto accords. Anyways, TERI receives funding from 200 organizations in 43 countries. Anyone want to bet how many of those are from the enviromentalist lobby?
Excellent points TedintheShed. IPCC, brought to you by the same people who brought you Oil for Food scandals and kiddie sex rings in Africa. And the people who make up the IPCC are, as you note, far from immune from other influences. Cui bono was a favorite Roman phrase, who profits?
I love science too Bak, that’s why I became a scientist, and why I still do what I do. And it disgusts me, and makes me ashamed of my profession, to see what some alleged scientists are doing to stifle debate and push this agenda. Lies do not serve the search for truth well.
And you’re right again Bak, no one on the skeptic side is calling for Nuremburg trials for pro-AGW proponents, or that they be shutup because they aren’t right. You have one side attempting to find the truth by encouraging debate and looking at the issues and data further, and one side stridently trying to silence all doubters. Reminds me more of the Inquisition than anything resembling modern science, but then, AGW has all the hallmarks of a religion and not a science.
The current issue of Philadelphia Magazine has a timely and relevant article profiling a global warming skeptic.
Here’s his opinion of An Inconvenient Truth:
Ah, I can already picture Bob and Tom rolling their eyes. Surely another right-wing non-scientist grubbing for money from Exxon.
Well, not exactly.
The subject is Professor Robert Giegengack of the University of Pennsylvania. Some of his credentials:
Let’s see….doctorate from one elite liberal Ivy League school, specialized in climate change…30 years experience in studying the topic and runnig the program at another elite liberal Ivy League school…and familiar with the concept for almost 50 years. Hmmm…that might be even more than Bob. Funny, it doesn’t sound to me like this is one Bob and Tom can write off so easily. Oh, and then there are two other items. Regarding his thoughts on the Gore movie:
And guess who he compares Gore to:
Hoo-boy!! Bob’s going to have a bit of trouble trying to label this one a propaganda tool of the right wing. Seems to me he’s probably in moonbat-land on every issue but this one.
Then there’s this final shot from the professor:
As Scooby-Doo might say: “Rut Roh!!!” Bob? Tom? In case you missed the point, Doctor Giegengack is talking about YOU.
Here’s the link. Can’t wait to see how the global warming theologists try to trash this one.
Yes, it’s all a conspiracy by the evil U.N. oil-for-sex racket, also known as the IPCC, to stifle the comments of brave maverick scientists, whose only concern is for the truth. They’ll be showing up any day in your home town in their black helicopters to impound your SUVs and your guns. Any scientists caught secretly harboring doubts about man-made global warming will be sent off to labor camps to “remediate” sea level rise with buckets and water balloons. Once again, poor honest conservatives are being oppressed by evil elitist intellectuals who drink French wine and hold socialist views. Did I leave out any favorite conservative shibboleths? Sorry, I couldn’t find a way to work Bill Clinton in there. Can you picture my eyeballs rolling? Yes, I think you can.
The rhetoric around here gets pretty ridiculous sometimes. Tell me one scientist who was prevented from expressing views that questioned the theory of man-made global warming. It seems that Dr. Giegengack, for one, is managing to sneak messages out somehow despite the house arrest that the IPCC has him under. While expressing regrets about someone being labeled “a Republican” for holding a skeptical point of view on one hand (I can sympathize with that one, actually—that’s gotta hurt!), which side in this debate is making hysterical insinuations about the IPCC and child sex rings?
Let’s not take ourselves too seriously here. We, the assorted knuckleheads posting here at Sister Toldjah’s site, all have our opinions. But the real debate should be occurring in the scientific community. For my own personal part, I wish that global warming were not a problem. I’d rather not have to worry about it. However, it seems to me that the facts are predominantly on the side of the scientific debate that contends that it is a problem, and that it’s going to continue to get worse. It wish it weren’t so, but I can’t BS myself and pretend that everything’s fine. If a serious body of work were to be gathered that proved the IPCC wrong, and if it were accepted in legitimate scientific circles, I would actually be glad about it. But it hasn’t happened, and doesn’t seem likely to happen. Get back to me if and when it does (rolls eyes).
They’ll trash him even harder GWR, nothing irritates a liberal more than someone who’s escaped the plantation and started to think for themselves. It’s the one unforgivable sin for a liberal.
I was perusing the comments on McIntyre’s blog on climate blog here, comment 60 was particularly illuminating, and speaks to a lot of the dishonesty being put forth:
Another great description of the real problem:
The rhetoric around here gets pretty ridiculous sometimes.
And you gave us a beautiful example of it to start that comment.
Without resorting to overblown fantasies, tell us, Bob: which side in this debate is the one that has proposed decertifying anyone who disagrees with them? It’s a straightforward, calm, question, and you know the answer as well as I.
But the real debate should be occurring in the scientific community.
Agreed. Then why is it that your side wants to shut off that debate?
Science is about asking questions. The scientist looks at some natural phenomenon and asks “Why?”. The moment someone decides that no one may ask that question, they have moved the subject from the domain of science to the domain of something religious, for lack of a better word.
Only one side in the debate has done that, Bob. That’s your side. If you really want scientific debate, get out of the pew and go back to the lab.
I think I’ve been forced to come to the conclusion that Bob isn’t really a human being. He is just too repetitive and ignores the facts too much. So, I’ve been forced to determine that he’s a not very well coded Turing Machine.
The GW acolytes are imposing an inquisition to rival the Great Inquisition of the middle ages or the “trial” of Taylor by the Ape Tribunal in the Original “Planet of the Apes”. (Sorry hard to type with frozen fingers out here in the frozen tundra.)
Not all scientists forsake real science for consensus.
Sev, that is an insult to Alan Turing and his machines.
PCD! You violated Ape Law!
[If I missed this point earlier in the comments, please forgive.]
Didn’t James Hansen receive a six-figure honorarium from the Heinz Foundation? Was it $200,00 or $250,000?
Some of us skeptics are driven by a desire for Good Science, not because we have a political (or fund-driven) agenda.
Sev, I thought you were going to call me a big ape.
I never met an ape I didn’t like…
As Severian personally demonstrates, people who deny man-made global warming try to make up in quantity of opinion what they lack in published data. The extensive quotes that you presented, Severian, are fine, but they’re just opinion pieces. But it does show how silly the claims are that somehow global warming deniers are being hushed up or “de-certified.” The internet seems to be awash in opinions from the global warming denial lobby. Such opinions are being actively solicited by outfits like the American Enterprise Institute, who, as we discussed at the top of this thread, will pay anyone handsomely for submitting such opinions. Severian, you must be bucking to get on the AEI’s list—heck, $10,000 would buy you a nice new hot tub (please, just get one of the more energy-efficient ones if you don’t mind).
Too much opinion, too little data. That’s the problem you guys face for now. Like I said, if that situation ever changes, be sure to let me know. I’m all ears!
No Bob, you’re all some part of the human anatomy, but ears are not what comes to mind. You are basically a perfect caricature of a liberal, closed minded, overly impressed by consensus, and willing to let your “betters” tell you what to believe, ignorant and damned proud of the fact, just like the good little sheeple your masters want you to be. If you ever have an original thought on this, or are willing to show that you’ve ever read any of the links and attempted to understand the science instead of frantically googling to try and find a reason not to have to think or have your assumptions challenged, let us know, send up a flare, something. It’s bound to be a moment of pure epiphany for you, and we’d like to share. There’s plenty of peer reviewed science in all the links, and viewpoints expressed by competent, non-ideologically blinded scientists. When you can refute one single solitary fact, let us know, until then your character assassination attempts are just tiresome noise.
And you’re once again attacking the alleged immorality of money, rather than the data these people present. If you ever, ever get smart enough to understand 1/10th of this, your opinion might be worth something. As it is, you’re just another deluded fool who enjoys being led around by the ring in your nose.
But at least you aren’t violating Ape Law!
Any discussion with you seems to quickly degenerate into a name-calling, attitude-copping farce, Severian. Go ahead, call me names. It’s only evidence of your own limited rhetorical skills. Maybe you should stick to attempts to brow-beat people through extensive cut-and-paste excerpts from JunkScience.com. At least it doesn’t reflect quite so badly on your character.
GW fanatics keep insisting that anyone who disagrees with their “findings” simply MUST be in the pocket of Big Oil.
Enter Al Gore, cheerleader for the GW crowd. Al Gore is chairman of Generation Investment Management, a London based investment firm which has been set up to tap growing demand for an investment style that blends traditional equity research with a focus on other factors such as social and environmental responsibility and corporate governance. Hmmm.
Al is quoted on the website saying “Integrating issues such as climate change into investment analysis is simply common sense”.
David Blood, the managing partner with Gore (yes, yes, “Blood & Gore, how appropriate) had a quite telling article published here.
Simply put, Gore is an agitprop for his own investment company which makes its money on….. GW!
Follow The Money, indeed!
Very good find TXMarko! Cui Bono indeed. Al “I wuz robbed” Gore has at least three major benefits from his tireless campaigning to attempt to save us all from manbearpig, the monetary benefits from his own investment company, the ego strokes he so obviously needs and lives for from the other deluded moonbats and the “international” community (he wants that Peace Prize), and the potential of leveraging this into a renewed and revitalized political career.
Well Bob, I’ll take that as a compliment, coming from someone who has presented such a stultifying boring and monotonous diatribe of unoriginality and group-think devoid of substance like your entire history of posts here. You’re a legend in your own mind though apparently. But, as Heinlein so aptly noted, delusions are not always a bad thing, your delusions of adequacy obviously keeps you from opening your wrists out of sheer desperation.
Still waiting for you to post one single intelligent thing about the science though, one single little bitty thing that shows you actually read and tried to understand anything. But, I’m not holding my breath, green may be your color, but blue just isn’t mine.
“If you ever have an original thought on this, or are willing to show that you’ve ever read any of the links . . . blah, blah, blah”
–Severian
“Well Bob, I’ll take that as a compliment, coming from someone who has presented such a stultifying boring and monotonous diatribe of unoriginality and group-think devoid of substance like your entire history of posts here.”
–Severian
Well, gee, Severian, I didn’t know we were being graded on originality. I thought intellectual honesty was the most important criterion for the purposes of this discussion. But since you raised the issue, I thought it would make a fun little test of how well you live up to criteria you apply in criticizing other people. Let’s take the volume of direct quotes from other people as a measure of originality. Measuring the number of column-centimeters of blockquotes for you and me, I get the following:
Quotes from other sources presented by Bob: 6.5 column-centimeters.
Quotes from other sources presented by Severian: 161 column-centimeters.
So, based on this completely valid indicator of originality, apparently you are 24.77 times less original than me. For the purposes of this work, we’ll call this number the hypocrisy ratio.
I thought you were just cutting and pasting from JunkScience.com. But if I overlooked any original research or theoretical concepts that you personally contributed to the science of climatology, please share. Bear in mind, whatever I’ve been doing here, I never claimed to be original. But you apparently can’t even win contests that you dream up yourself.
Bob you truly a piece of work. You accuse Sev and others of attacking you, then you play the martyr about how horrible we all are. Let’s go back and look at some of your genius posts. Here is alittle item from your 2nd post Bob.
Nope, you didn’t intend to be insulting with terms like anti-intellectuals. At this point in time not a single post is directed to you, but yet you feel the need to be insulting.
Let’s look abit deeper tho. From Your 3rd post:
Geeee Bob, calling someone ignorant is such a high compliment. Why so defensive Bob?? But to call our fabulous Web Hostess ignorant, is just flat out wrong.
In your 4th post, we read this:
Wingnuts, yes yet another term of endearment from you Bob. Your constant superior attitude and snide remarks towards the folks that post here are just revolting. I won’t be replying to you, so say what you want, I don’t really care, but between you and me, Bak and Sev are easily your intellectual superiors, and you are nothing more than a parrot squawking the latest BS from the GW fools, and it grows tiresome. – Lorica
Bob’s 1:09 AM comment misses the point ENTIRELY and it’s either on purpose or due to his continued negligence. Nobody is talking about conspiracy or black helicopters. We are saying YOU bob dismiss and ignore the substance. You act like the arbiter of what is true.
It is negligence on your part to do so.
Plus there is a long line of people who HAVE called for nuremberg type trials for “deniers” and pulling credentials from those who question the opinion of man-made global warming. As much as you want to ridicule with your black helicopter scenario painting it is YOU and people LIKE YOU who are doing the disservice of dismissing facts that aren’t convenient for your side of the debate. And again, it is our side that is looking at all the facts and weighing the evidence that there is brighter sun and weighing the cost of Kyoto as 95-0 Senators have done.
Perspective is the key. Gain it some day and you’ll gain discussion.
Hmmmm…sounds like this blogger has met Bob before:
Being serious for a moment, Lorica, I’m really not a mean-spirited person. I realize that when we debate (argue) issues here, sometimes we get a little heated, but I do make an effort not to be the first one to start insulting others. And I try to refrain from name-calling even when others are doing so liberally against me. I don’t think I’ve complained about it, because it’s not like my feelings are hurt, but I do note it sometimes when other peoples’ comments seem excessively personal or mean-spirited.
And come on. I tried to be respectful with Severian when we first started debating these global warming issues a week or two ago. But I ended up being called stupid, a sheep, a sardine for chrissake (what the hell does that mean?), a deluded fool, and lately, “stultifying boring and unoriginal.” And after all of that, he accuses me of “character assassination.” He said something that I thought was exceedingly mean-spirited recently, which was, “your delusions of adequacy obviously keeps you from opening your wrists out of sheer desperation.” My gosh, what a hateful thing to say. You haven’t been particularly respectful either, Lorica, although you’ve certainly never gone that far.
As I’ve said before, it’s not like your guys’ mockery hurts my feelings. I can take it, and when I’ve taken enough of it, then I start dishing some of it back just so y’all can know how it feels. That’s why I’m giving Severian a bit of a hard time. But really, I’m teasing, and I hope that it doesn’t come across as seriously rancorous. In a way, I’m trying to defuse the enmity, because my goal is to have a respectful dialog where we can all have our say and have fun teasing (and sometimes gently mocking) each other. But if things have gotten nasty, I don’t believe I’m the one who started it.
But I’ll probably keep posting here for the time being, just because I do find it stimulating and fun. I appreciate Sister Toldjah providing this forum, and you all for posting here. It’s much more fun than preaching to the choir. I’m probably just as stubborn and doctrinaire as any of you are, but I do read what you say and think about it—if only for a moment before I shoot it down.
Have a good one, Lorica. I just can’t stay mad at you. And Jesus, Severian, another quote? Are you compulsive or something?
Bob wrote, “then I start dishing some of it back just so y’all can know how it feels.”
You’ve been doing it from square one. You’ve been questioning people’s “motives” and whether or not they “care” about the environment and dismissing stuff without dealing with the substance due to the funding (how does it feel when we do the same with the U.N. based organization?) You’ve been hurling accusations against conservatives from day one and you act like you JUST STARTED????
Grow up and look at the mirror!! Hey – You can hardly offend me. I use the mirror thing all day long with you liberals trying to wake you up because I once was a liberal over 16 years ago. You do not have a lock on being well intentioned. If you stuck to the substance entirely these discussions would go WAYYYY different but you DON’T. We wish for that kind of discussion.
I keep asking you not to dismiss and ignore and so does Sev.
Bob wrote, “if only for a moment before I shoot it down.
”
You wish. You don’t even deal with the substance !!! Our point that we keep repeating.
Going to my daughter’s karate class. One day they’ll kick liberals’ butts.
Thanks, Baklava, for pointing out how any gesture of conciliation is ignored, any attempt at self-deprecating humor ( “. . . if only for a moment before I shoot it down.”) is taken literally and immediately used to attack me, and anything that you’ve never done (seriously considering the substance of my comments) is used as the principal complaint against me. You make a fuss about my attitude, while ignoring and apparently condoning comments that suggested that I should slit my wrists.
At least I tried to be a sport with you guys at various points, and I meant it. At least I made some gestures of kindness to Lorica, even though she’s never said a single kind thing to me. Where’s the respect or conciliation in your own attitude? You end your post saying your daughters will “kick liberals’ butts.” To be honest, I don’t think that you guys are garden-variety conservatives. You seem to me like extremists who really hate liberals. I hope it’s not true, but so far I have little else to go on.
But let me just say that I don’t feel superior to you, and don’t want to act as though I have a monopoly on virtue. I have my own opinions, and I try to be ethical, but I don’t think that makes me better than anybody else. Sorry if you think I have to agree with you to respect you, but that’s not the way I see it. Anyway, I don’t have a bone to pick with any of you. I think it’s interesting to perhaps get beyond the political posturing—which is what we all spend probably too much of our time doing—and get to have a frank exchange like this one. We’re all human beings, after all, and should not see each other as enemies.