Global Warming The debbil made me do it

Dan wrote in
:

On Mar 21, 8:50 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:

But it is illustrative of the current right wing impulse towards
anti-intellectualism. Stein is a good example of how modern right
wing ideology will deny any science it perceives as a threat to the
party line.

There's a paragraph laden with broad brush accusations -- who exactly
is this "right wing?"



Obviously the opposite of the "liberals" and their "attitudes" you keep
ranting about.


Stupid is as stupid does.


Bertie

"Dan" wrote in message
...
On Mar 21, 8:50 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:


If by "science" you mean the academy writ large, certainly you live in
a dream world if you think that ivory tower is free of bias.


Academia (since the 50's) tells us that Western Science is abusive, sexist,
racist, homophobic, etc.

On Mar 22, 12:43 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

I think there are hidden flaws in arguments when the contrary position
gest so incredibly lathered up over what they perceive to be "stupid."

Nope. contrary postions are fine. stupidity isn;'t.

If it's that untenable then why give it a moment's thought?

Because they are bad neighbors.

So what do you propose for those you deem "stupid?"

Annihilation? Exorcism? Re-education?


What's liberal about the facts?

Bertie

"Facts" now that's a handy term. So in the Global warming debate, I
assume those that agree with the IPCC are basing their conclusions on
"facts," while those that don't are simply stupid?

Sorry -- when the opposite position gets to determine when the counter
is a "contrary position" or simply "stupid" and baseless, that's not
an argument, that's a contradiction. And until there's an agreement to
return to logic, you have namecalling.

Review Monty Python for clarification.


Dan Mc

"Matt W. Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Dan" wrote in message
...
On Mar 21, 8:50 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:


If by "science" you mean the academy writ large, certainly you live in
a dream world if you think that ivory tower is free of bias.


Academia (since the 50's) tells us that Western Science is abusive, sexist,
racist, homophobic, etc.

Just so.

And the right wing enjoyed watching the left fight what they knew must
ultimately be a losing battle.

But now the righties have stupidly maneuvered themselves into a couple of
ideological anti-science corners. All they really have left is to cry
conspiracy, and a couple of mendacious "documentaries," The Great Global
Warming Swindle and Stein's Expelled, are part of the general squealing.

"Dan" wrote:

If by "science" you mean the academy writ large, certainly you live in
a dream world if you think that ivory tower is free of bias.

No. By science I mean science; the modern, self correcting process of
empirical study that began with the birth of The Royal Society and has since
unlocked many of the great secrets of nature. Science goes where the evidence
takes it, and does not--cannot--consider who doesn't like what it finds.

As a conservative columnist put it

"Dragged forward by cold science, which doesn't care what we think or believe
or wish for, we are headed into some interesting times."

Dan wrote in news:e66c7be1-89c7-41ba-adbe-
:

On Mar 22, 12:43 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

I think there are hidden flaws in arguments when the contrary
position
gest so incredibly lathered up over what they perceive to be
"stupid."

Nope. contrary postions are fine. stupidity isn;'t.

If it's that untenable then why give it a moment's thought?

Because they are bad neighbors.

So what do you propose for those you deem "stupid?"

Annihilation? Exorcism? Re-education?


If only.




What's liberal about the facts?

Bertie

"Facts" now that's a handy term.


You changed the tune, sushine.


So in the Global warming debate, I
assume those that agree with the IPCC are basing their conclusions on
"facts," while those that don't are simply stupid?


Hey, maybe you aren't so stupid.



Sorry -- when the opposite position gets to determine when the counter
is a "contrary position" or simply "stupid" and baseless, that's not
an argument, that's a contradiction. And until there's an agreement to
return to logic, you have namecalling.


Thats right, it never was an argument.

Review Monty Python for clarification.

I watch it every day, right here.




Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:

The irony level is obviously screaming towards the stratosphere by this
point. But here's what pushes it over the edge. Myers' guest, who
apparently was not recognized and who told this story this morning
was...Richard Dawkins!


Good stuff, eh?


It gets even funnier:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2..._misbehave.php

"Dan Luke" wrote in news:13uqvbgfofppoa0
@news.supernews.com:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:

The irony level is obviously screaming towards the stratosphere by
this
point. But here's what pushes it over the edge. Myers' guest, who
apparently was not recognized and who told this story this morning
was...Richard Dawkins!


Good stuff, eh?


It gets even funnier:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...to_misbehave.p
hp




And in the bottomless pit that is idiocy, this will surely move their
cause along.

I loved the "How can you question Darwinism if you're so intelligent?"


Any idea what the magic evil question is? I'm going to take a guess and
say it;'s something like" How can you be so sure he was right? "

And if they answer, they have more patience than I. I'd shoot the*******
as a demonstration after the 50,00th time it was asked.







Bertie

On Mar 28, 7:36 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Dan Luke" wrote in news:13uqvbgfofppoa0

You just HAD to do it, dinchya?

grrrrrrrr

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
"Dan Luke" wrote in news:13uqvbgfofppoa0
@news.supernews.com:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:

The irony level is obviously screaming towards the stratosphere by
this
point. But here's what pushes it over the edge. Myers' guest, who
apparently was not recognized and who told this story this morning
was...Richard Dawkins!


Good stuff, eh?


It gets even funnier:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...to_misbehave.p
hp




And in the bottomless pit that is idiocy, this will surely move their
cause along.

I loved the "How can you question Darwinism if you're so intelligent?"


Any idea what the magic evil question is? I'm going to take a guess and
say it;'s something like" How can you be so sure he was right? "

Or some variation thereof.

It's the arguments from incredulity I can't stomach: The flagellum argument.
The vertebrate eye argument.

Feh.

And if they answer, they have more patience than I. I'd shoot the*******
as a demonstration after the 50,00th time it was asked.

Indeed.

What a waste of humanity's time these pricks are.