Science vs Political Ideals

[lucaspa]

No, you're not getting off the hook that easy. You said Rush says "all lies". Why did you have to reach back 2 years if Rush says "all lies"?

 

Because that is when I stopped listening to him as a waste of time.

 

I guess I'll do the research for you to find the facts on the story, but even if it happened as you say, he just got caught being stupid, that's obvious. Aren't coal and oil basically the same, minus the water content?

 

Sigh. Oil does not contain water. It is liquid hydrocarbons. Coal is solid hydrocarbons.

 

It's not "being stupid". He was using a tactic that (at least) was commonly used by him: used a mistaken fact as support of an argument. Thus, he claims to base his arguments on "fact", but the facts are lies.

 

1. He claimed the Titanic ran on oil.

2. When caught in that, he simply claimed that coal and oil were the same thing in regard to interaction with water. You know very well they are not. Coal is a solid and does not dissolve or form droplets in water. It is like a rock -- just sits there. In contrast, oil mixes with water, moves, and ends up coating shorelines and organisms.

 

And you and I both know he didn't say that one sentence and leave it alone - he probably went off for 30 minutes trying to dig himself out of that hole.

 

Since you weren't listening -- by your own admission -- then you don't "know" that he spent 30 minutues trying to dig himself out. And no, he didn't. He had finished the story by the time the e-mails got there. So we got a one line dismissal of refutation of the basis of his argument and then moved on to the next item on his agenda.

 

I mean validated in that he said what I felt, only articulated, which I couldn't do. That's actually popular among Rush listeners. It felt good hearing someone say the things I had always wondered myself - he validated my thoughts.

 

But saying what you say isn't enough, is it? After all, I can say what you say but then go on to show what you say to be contrary to facts and reality. In that case, I'm not "validating" you anymore, am I? No, what Rush does is 1) say what you feel, but then 2) tells you that you are correct. And that is why you like him.

 

As for Rush factoids, I've always questioned them because he will be as honest as a lawyer. Yes maybe volcanoes do flood the air with flourocarbons, and maybe that even compares to what mankind puts out in a decade,

 

Sorry, but you swallowed another Rush lie here. "Some greenhouse gases (most of the halocarbons, for example) have no natural source." The Sciam article I want you to read.

 

"Furthermore the chemical agents that DO eat up the ozone layer have been clearly detected. Their path of destruction is now so well demonstrated that even the companies that make those chemicals believe the evidence. Ozone depletion is caused by chlorine compounds called CFCs produced and emitted by human beings -- Freons in our cooling systems, gases in our insulating foams, solvents in our electronics factories." http://www.sustainabilityinstitute.org/dhm_archive/index.php?display_article=vn504ozoneed

 

So, look at your argument

but you don't have to be a climate expert to wonder about the difference between accumulated C02 output and sudden eruption of that output. Again, I don't think you're going to catch him "lying" about things, I think you're going to see him "squirming" all the time.

 

He lied about fluorocarbons coming from volcanoes. Volcanoes, BTW, spew chlorine, not fluorine!

 

So, in the same breath that you say you view Rush's "factoids" critically, you have uncritically accepted a fact that is a lie. Good work!

 

the first time I'd heard the term "critical thinking".

Irony, then, that you heard the term from a man who is dedicated to manipulating you so that you don't think critically. As you said

he has a good talent for pursuasion.

 

lucaspa: the data clearly falsifies that 1) climate is staying the same and 2) humans are not involved.

 

Data doesn't interpret anything. It's just numbers, measurements, variables - it doesn't do anything. So the data doesn't falsify a thing. Humans look at it and interpret that it falsifies something.

 

You are being a great case study of how people deny science. Now you are attacking how science works. Notice the Rushoid: changing "falsify" to "interpret". Yes, data does falsify.

 

Remember the hypothetico-deductive method used by science:

1. Form a hypothesis.

2. Deduce consequences (observations/data) from the hypothesis if it is true.

3. Look for the consequences.

4. If the consequences are opposite of what the hypothesis predicts, the hypothesis is false.

 

This goes back to "true statements cannot have false consequences". Data are the consequences. So we don't need "interpretation".

 

I'm not attacking science, I'm demanding a more convincing consensus from science seeing as how 3 previous scientifically prophesied climate catastrophies didn't happen.

 

First, let's have you document those "3 previous scientifically prophesied climate catastrophies". Since you have demonstrated that you get your "facts" from Limbaugh, have you independently documented them?

 

Second, what more "convincing consensus" do you need?

I see that not all of your hands are up,

You notice that not every scientists' hand is up on evolution, so do you advocate

Let the skeptics do their thing, and call everyone out and I'm sure before too long this will get settled.

that approach to evolution, too? So you would advocate "teach the controversy" in public schools, wouldn't you? C'mon, be consistent here.

 

That's another tactic. Trying to claim that the issue is not settled when it is.

 

We're not qualified to interpret the data.

 

Up above you said

but you don't have to be a climate expert to wonder about the difference between accumulated C02 output and sudden eruption of that output.

Here you think you are competent. So where did you lose that competence?

 

Yes I can read your pie charts and graphs - and then a skeptic will provide their own, a different time line, or the same one but including other variables left out of yours, and vice versa. Both are arguing and counter arguing and I really can't tell who's right or wrong.

Which one is in the peer-reviewed literature? So you really can't, or won't? Why is it that you don't accept the skeptic when they provide their own data on creationism?

 

That's really not fair because I have already assumed global warming is true as predicted by science. Logically, it makes more sense to believe the majority than the minority when you have no faith in discerning for yourself. There is no data I "don't like", it all looks convincing to me.

 

You haven't posted any contrary data. Your only "data" has been 3 supposed previous failed predictions.

 

I'm prepared to believe we are solely to blame and will ignite in a ball of fire in 10 years, as I'm prepared to believe it's all BS and the world will have an oil fire party.

 

ROFL! And yet another classic tactic: make a strawman! Since no one is saying we'll "ignite in a ball of fire in 10 years" and the data is against it, you have set up a situation where "it's all BS" is much more likely! Nice deception and lawyering. Rush would be proud. You've learned well, his padawan apprentice.

[ParanoiA]

Sigh. Oil does not contain water. It is liquid hydrocarbons. Coal is solid hydrocarbons.

 

That's like saying beer does not contain water. Of course it does. But it's beer now, not water. Just like it's liquid hydrocarbons - liquified because the water could not escape during the process. Oil and coal are both decayed organic matter in the absence of oxygen. Oil is different only in that it's primarily algal matter. Rush was not lying, he was pushing a point of view - a flawed point of view.

 

1. He claimed the Titanic ran on oil.

 

Yes, that was stupid. Not a lie. He didn't "claim" it. Here's the transcript:

 

"Listen to this, I’m just reading this story here about this oil tanker that’s doomed—split in half—and sunk off the coast of Spain. Listen—listen to this: (reads from a news account) ‘An environmentalist warned that the wreckage would be like a time bomb on the ocean floor, some 11,800 feet down.’ See, some of the oil tanks in this tanker are intact, not all of the oil has spilled. But it might! Oh, it might! We’re all going to die! Baah hah hah! I mean, this is what they’re trying to ferment on everybody. So, ok: what became of the oil in the Titanic? What became of th—I mean, that was down 12,000 uh, 14,000 feet. Who died from the oil in the Titanic? It wasn’t in port—I mean, there’s still a lot of fuel oil on board.[/u'] You know wha—wha—I would guarantee you that if those oil tanks leak open or whatever, the—the—the ocean 12,000 feet deep’s gonna eat that oil so fast it’ll never reach the surface, and if it does it’ll reach the surface in drops! Ahhh, it gets tiresome, you know, I—I know the nature of the program is cyclical, but this is how the liberals do it—they just keep pounding us, they just keep coming back with this stuff more and more and they wear people out."

 

He obviously didn't know it ran on coal and made a fool out of himself. "Lying" is your tactic to capitalize on someone's stupidity to discredit their motives. Despite what you may believe, everytime someone says something stupid, it's not a lie, Lucaspa...it's something stupid. Rush would also try to make it seem like someone was lying if he could.

 

Now, by your logic, you lied:

 

Of course, Rush also implied that the Titanic had as much oil as the tanker when, of course, the difference is at least 3 orders of magnitude between the amount of oil carried by a tanker and that carried as fuel by a cruise ship.

 

Rush implied no such thing according to that transcript. I'm sure you were just mistaken. But, by your standards, you lied, just like Rush. By my standards, Rush was stupid and you simply didn't recall a 4 year old event accurately. That's the difference between rhetoric fueled by hatred, and common sense fueled by reason.

 

2. When caught in that, he simply claimed that coal and oil were the same thing in regard to interaction with water[/i'].

 

Don't have a transcript for that part of the program, but again, I doubt it. That would be a lie. There's no "essential equivalence" argument for that kind of comment. So, if he actually mentioned "interaction with water" then I agree, he lied. I don't think he did. Not because I think he's above it, but because he's as honest as a lawyer - I would imagine he would stop short of interaction with water.

 

1) say what you feel, but then 2) tells you that you are correct. And that is why you like him.

 

Yes, that's why I liked him. I like him now simply because of that emotional tie to my early interest in politics.

 

Sorry, but you swallowed another Rush lie here.

 

No I didn't. That was my mistake. Here's what Rush said:

 

Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines spewed forth more than a thousand times the amount of ozone-depleting chemicals[/b'] in one eruption than all the fluorocarbons manufactured by wicked, diabolical and insensitive corporations in history....

 

He didn't say flourocarbons.

 

So, again by your standards, you lied.

 

He lied about fluorocarbons coming from volcanoes. Volcanoes, BTW, spew chlorine, not fluorine!

 

And you lie, again.

 

Maybe you should rethink your standards, and consider using reason and fair judgement to call someone a liar. It also helps if you drop your ideology and think critically, not emotionally.

 

You are being a great case study of how people deny science. Now you are attacking how science works. Notice the Rushoid: changing "falsify" to "interpret".

 

And you are being a great case study of how some scientists hold themselves above reproach, accusing responsible inquiry with "attacking science". Not attacks - good faith inquiry. Yet you fly off the handle and claim you're being "attacked". This is what Rush does. Anyone who even questions what he believes, is a "liberal kook" that is "attacking the values of america". This is what you have done.

 

Now, what is "data"? Where I come from, "data" is the raw numbers, measurements and etc. It's the graph that compares annual temparatures to a certain period of time. It's the CO2 measurements taken periodically and recorded. If I have that wrong, please correct me, because that's how I'm using the term.

 

Here's what you're doing....by saying:

 

the data clearly falsifies that...

 

You then remove the interpreter from the statement, as if the ONLY way it could interpreted is the way in which you have presented it. I didn't refute your statement about the climate changing and humans being involved - I agree with that. I just took issue with removing "scientists" from their data. Someone has to look at the numbers and logically reason "x". It's quite basic and fundamental.

 

The reason why I'm doing that is because the data has NEVER been in question, that I know of anyway. Global warming skepticism has ALWAYS been about interpreting that data. A true critical thinker, and seeker of truth would not attempt to use rhetoric like "attacking science" when attempting to analyze a problem at its source. It would make no sense to argue about any other aspect of GW other than interpretation. The data seems sound and I've never heard anyone refute it.

 

And since things don't interpret themselves, people have to do it. Scientists are people and I depend on them to interpret it. Most of them have interpreted it, further, to mean we're causing GW. So I'm on board. I'm also watching the skeptics since the consensus isn't impressive enough to dismiss them, although it's certainly close. The more resistance I get about it, the more inclined I am to keep looking.

 

First, let's have you document those "3 previous scientifically prophesied climate catastrophies". Since you have demonstrated that you get your "facts" from Limbaugh, have you independently documented them?

 

Again, not from Limbaugh...

 

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp

 

This is more about media than science. And it's not "attacking science" either. It's talking about the same phenomenon we see today. Although, I think we have way more scientific consensus now than ever before.

 

but you don't have to be a climate expert to wonder about the difference between accumulated C02 output and sudden eruption of that output.

 

Here you think you are competent. So where did you lose that competence?

 

I think I'm competent enough to "wonder" about stuff - golly' date=' gee whiz kinda thing. I don't think I really should have to say that's quite a bit different than full blown "analysis".

 

Which one is in the peer-reviewed literature? So you really can't, or won't? Why is it that you don't accept the skeptic when they provide their own data on creationism?

 

I won't do the ridiculous and waste my life pouring over documents and learn the trade in order to understand them - all just to do my own verification on ONE issue facing the world today. I won't. I will, just like you and the rest of the world, depend on experts in a given field to do the interpreting and let me know the results. It's called dividing the workload. It's central to late human success. Some would say the division of work is a major key to our exponential rate of advancement.

 

You haven't posted any contrary data. Your only "data" has been 3 supposed previous failed predictions.

 

That article is not "data". It's some human's interpretation of historical events. I haven't provided any data. I'm talking about pie charts and graphs and articles that actually talk about the science. I don't reject any of it. I told you before, I don't know how to discern bad data from good - I'm depending on you guys for that. You're doing fine, what's the problem?

 

ROFL! And yet another classic tactic: make a strawman! Since no one is saying we'll "ignite in a ball of fire in 10 years" and the data is against it, you have set up a situation where "it's all BS" is much more likely! Nice deception and lawyering. Rush would be proud. You've learned well, his padawan apprentice.

 

Actually I was just trying to use colorful language to express how much I really don't care either way. I'm not really sure what got you thinking I'm a "denier" or whatever in the first place. I'm far more predisposed to believe IN global warming. I've already accepted it. I'm just not 100% convinced.

 

And this is where you prove to be just like Rush. Anyone who doesn't agree 100%, is attacking you, or your trade, making it personal...etc

 

You are proving my suspicion:

 

You hate Rush because you're similar to him. Most people hate most in others what they see in themselves.

 

I have provided data, in 3 posts now, that includes repeated lack of parity with Rush's views. I have stated, repeatedly, that I only agree with a handful of his views anymore. Yet, you have ignored this data and characterized me as "his padawan apprentice". You also ignored the data on my lack of faith or trust in Rush's facts, yet you also characterize my information as coming from his facts - when NONE of it did.

 

You ignore the data you don't like to make the conclusions you want. This is what Rush does. You repeatedly accuse me of attacking science or scientists, when merely questioning science or scientists - another Rush Limbaugh trait.

 

You infer a psychological stick in that last quote, using the fact that no one is saying "we'll ignite in a ball of fire in 10 years" without noticing the fact that no one is saying "the world will have an oil fire party" either - both are consequences. The conditions were "We are solely to blame" and "It's all BS". Yet you disingenuously presented that your own way - the Rush Limbaugh way.