How to eliminate this?

[toastywombel]

Just when I have hope for the progression of the United States, I read an article like this,

 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rubio-denies-climate-change

[John Cuthber]

"And what they have chosen to do is take a handful of decades of research and say that this is now evidence of a longer-term trend that's directly and almost solely attributable to man made activity, I do not agree with that."

 

What an idiot?

Decades of evidence, but he backs his hunch.

However I think there are two ways to eliminate this .

The expensive way is to simply wait.

Eventually, even folks like that will have to accept the evidence of their own eyes.

 

The sensible way to eliminate that ignorance and bigotry is through education..

[john5746]

Yep, this will replace the "believe in evolution" question for Repub candidates as a litmus test. It will be interesting to see if ANY republican candidate will say they believe in man-made global warming.

[Phi for All]

Most Republicans want to keep big government from sticking its nose in our business. But some want the government to tell you what to do with your own body, the ultimate in "my business". This is a HUGE conflict of interest on a basic platform point.

 

Most Republicans cherish the Constitution as a viable historic template for our republic. But some want to change a few things in their favor, because they're the ones who create the jobs, which is much more important than actually doing the jobs. Another conflict of interest.

 

Most Republicans favor market solutions. But some want special legislative considerations for their businesses that give them an edge over the competition. An unbelievably huge conflict of interest.

 

The party is full of conflicts born of ignorance and agenda. It's hard to say where one starts and the other takes over, but it seems to be a fairly parasitic relationship.

 

Seeing as how we've known for a while that humans can affect climate through abuse (early 20th century cartographers tracking climate change in mainland China due to deforestation), I think climate change deniers fall into two camps, those whose businesses or livelihoods would be adversely affected if they had to control their impact on the climate, and those who don't understand science and so fall prey to whatever propaganda the first camp puts out.

 

I think the way to eliminate this is to ask people what they think would happen if we all paid attention to what scientists are telling us. Their answer will tell you if this is what they HOPE will happen, or what they FEAR will happen. Key on educating the people who HOPE. I wouldn't waste my time on the people who FEAR, there's just too much science they're unwilling to learn.

[Dekan]

 

I suppose many scientifically-minded people think:

 

Climate-change is an obvious fact. The Earth has alternated between cold and hot periods throughout its history. Long before humans came on the scene.

 

But what some scientists seem to HOPE, is that these alternations can stopped in their tracks - simply by reducing anthropogenic carbon emissions!

 

That rightly induces a FEAR of scientific hubris, which threatens to undermine the credibility of Science.

 

Doesn't the emotionally-loaded phrase "Climate-change Deniers" sound unscientific. More akin to ideology, or religion, What will the next step be: "Climate-change Heretics"?

Edited May 13, 2014 by Dekan

[jduff]

Just when I have hope for the progression of the United States, I read an article like this,

 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rubio-denies-climate-change

Censorship?

[imatfaal]

I suppose many scientifically-minded people think:

 

Climate-change is an obvious fact. The Earth has alternated between cold and hot periods throughout its history. Long before humans came on the scene.

 

But what some scientists seem to HOPE, is that these alternations can stopped in their tracks - simply by reducing anthropogenic carbon emissions!

 

That rightly induces a FEAR of scientific hubris, which threatens to undermine the credibility of Science.

 

Doesn't the emotionally-loaded phrase "Climate-change Deniers" sound unscientific. More akin to ideology, or religion, What will the next step be: "Climate-change Heretics"?

 

No - your representation of the current situation is (deliberately?) misleading. We are not merely in natural upswing - we are causing a significant proportion of the increase. Scientists have shown beyond all doubt that anthropogenic climate change is here. As the change is man made we hope that we can also reverse the situation we have created.

 

You claim that the denier movement is victim of an emotionally charged phrase and then completely misrepresent the scientific position - that makes me think that "deniers" is a perfect nomenclature; deniers work in the face of facts, reason and logic and that where those that refuse to listen to the scientific consensus have placed themselves.

[John Cuthber]

Censorship?

Could you expand on that please?

[imatfaal]

Censorship?

 

Wanting politicians not to spread lies merely in order to boost their campaign donations from Koch Bros et al? No; that's not censorship.

 

Wanting those who form public opinion and have the ear of the press to rely on evidence and the rational investigation of facts rather than gut instinct when making a scientific statement. Not censorship.

 

Wishing that a vital discourse be non-partisan and directed to solutions not a never ending argument over veracity? Nope - still Not.

 

Hoping that we aren't the generation that for years to come will be blamed for knowing about the problem, understanding the solution, and failing to act because we are self centred, intellectually bankrupt, and arrogant? NOT CENSORSHIP

[jduff]

 

Wanting politicians not to spread lies merely in order to boost their campaign donations from Koch Bros et al? No; that's not censorship.

 

Wanting those who form public opinion and have the ear of the press to rely on evidence and the rational investigation of facts rather than gut instinct when making a scientific statement. Not censorship.

 

Wishing that a vital discourse be non-partisan and directed to solutions not a never ending argument over veracity? Nope - still Not.

 

Hoping that we aren't the generation that for years to come will be blamed for knowing about the problem, understanding the solution, and failing to act because we are self centred, intellectually bankrupt, and arrogant? NOT CENSORSHIP

The above quote is FULL LIBERAL GOODNESS at its best! Please feel free to take it all in! Koch Bro's.. lol!! Talk to a elitist, oops, I meant liberal. They will profess the same thing. In fact in most cases, liberals will use the same quote above VERBATIM.

 

Now Imafaal, when you can give a good response rather than a programmed agenda driven one. Feel free to actually answer. Until that point. I will presume you are just following liberal drone doctrine/conjecture. Any response that includes Koch bros in the first sentence is reason to be wary.

 

Yeah, you lost me when the first sentence included Koch bro's. Which makes whatever is written below it as nothing more than agenda driven drivel!

Edited May 14, 2014 by jduff

[John Cuthber]

I think you will find that the term "elitist" describes those in power due to their wealth and seeking to keep it that way.

But, in any event, the quote I gave early in the thread where the guy explicitly says that he is ignoring the actual information provided by decades of research shows that he will not listen to reason.

 

Yet we still let him speak.

So, there's plainly no censorship is there?

 

So, why claim it?

Do you need to make false claims to support your assertions?

What does that say about the validity of those assertions?

Oh, btw, just because you lost the track, doesn't mean the track is wrong so this

"you lost me when the first sentence included Koch bro's. Which makes whatever is written below it as nothing more than agenda driven drivel!" is a non sequiteur.

 

Again, if you have to use faulty logic to support your ideas, what does that say about their truth?

[jduff]

John, I never claimed censorship. That was the answer given to the question the OP gave. The answer was also a question, not a statement. I see you did not differentiate between the two.

 

As to faulty logic. If your misinterpretation equal me having faulty logic then I am 100% behind that assertion. Considering where that view came from.

 

Also, in your statement above, who is exactly "WE"? You are saying there is a group? Or more than one? Considering your own words I could make it a point that what I wrote of liberalism is accurate. Thanks to your own statement.

 

I am grateful to show other viewers the limited almost hive like thought of the profoundly misunderstood ego driven liberals(or supporters of liberals) who inhabit this site. Your own statements make it easy.

 

I am glad we can have this conversation.

Edited May 14, 2014 by jduff

[imatfaal]

The above quote is FULL LIBERAL GOODNESS at its best! Please feel free to take it all in! Koch Bro's.. lol!! Talk to a elitist, oops, I meant liberal.

Yeah - proud to be liberal and hope to be good.

 

Now Imafaal, when you can give a good response rather than a programmed agenda driven one. Feel free to actually answer. Until that point. I will presume you are just following liberal drone doctrine/conjecture. Any response that includes Koch bros in the first sentence is reason to be wary.

 

Yeah, you lost me when the first sentence included Koch bro's. Which makes whatever is written below it as nothing more than agenda driven drivel!

It's a great trick to actively sponsor any denier and yet if that sponsorship is mentioned to be able to claim prejudice. Well I have met more than my fair share of oil-co board members and CEOs (incl one of the Kochs) and because I am white, affluent, suited and booted, and work in shipping they wrongly assume that I want to protect the status quo by obscuring the facts, denying the truth, and throwing spare change at any fool who is so blinkered to believe their lies; my knowledge of the lengths that the elite will go to in order to protect their cushy lifestyle is first hand.

 

 

John, I never claimed censorship. That was the answer given to the question the OP gave. The answer was also a question, not a statement. I see you did not differentiate between the two.

 

As to faulty logic. If your misinterpretation equal me having faulty logic then I am 100% behind that assertion. Considering where that view came from.

 

Also, in your statement above, who is exactly "WE"? You are saying there is a group? Or more than one? Considering your own words I could make it a point that what I wrote of liberalism is accurate. Thanks to your own statement.

 

I am grateful to show other viewers the limited almost hive like thought of the profoundly misunderstood ego driven liberals(or supporters of liberals) who inhabit this site. Your own statements make it easy.

 

I am glad we can have this conversation.

It must be relaxing to be so certain in your convictions that you do not even need to check facts, understand the situation, or take any notice of actual reality. One of the benefits of being supported by the facts is that when we all say the same thing it is because it is the only valid answer - whereas when you are completely wrong and spout the same things outside observers know that you are merely parroting the latest dogma. I am willing to be judged by my peers and by history and as such I will act on the basis that the scientific consensus is correct.

[jduff]

Yeah - proud to be liberal and hope to be good.

 

It's a great trick to actively sponsor any denier and yet if that sponsorship is mentioned to be able to claim prejudice. Well I have met more than my fair share of oil-co board members and CEOs (incl one of the Kochs) and because I am white, affluent, suited and booted, and work in shipping they wrongly assume that I want to protect the status quo by obscuring the facts, denying the truth, and throwing spare change at any fool who is so blinkered to believe their lies; my knowledge of the lengths that the elite will go to in order to protect their cushy lifestyle is first hand.

 

 

 

It must be relaxing to be so certain in your convictions that you do not even need to check facts, understand the situation, or take any notice of actual reality. One of the benefits of being supported by the facts is that when we all say the same thing it is because it is the only valid answer - whereas when you are completely wrong and spout the same things outside observers know that you are merely parroting the latest dogma. I am willing to be judged by my peers and by history and as such I will act on the basis that the scientific consensus is correct.

Exactly what facts are those concerning the original post are you speaking of? I actually have said very little in this set of threads. Other than pointing out the obvious concerning you liberals.

 

So exactly where did I construe my one question. Which was simple to understand. Here I will repeat it in bold letters and a color. Perhaps that will help you see the word/question for what it is.

 

Censorship?

Hope that helped.

As far as oil goes. I really do not need to know who you are dealing are with, or even how you dress. I do want to know how you are going to stop the big evil oil mongering anti-climate republican. But all I have seen are complaints and portrayals of victimization. Not exactly progress! Nor logic! Heck, you guys could not even get my question right. John used it as a statement, rather than the question it is. It cannot be that hard to understand.

 

You speak reality. I would recommend taking a break and looking at yours. Since both the continuity and progression of your reality is seemingly lacking.

 

Also what dogma am I parroting? You admittedly and openly claimed you are a liberal. As such our viewers can take that at face value. Especially towards your commentary and views. I am quite happy to share the liberal thought frame.

 

I will be happy to help coach you along in your complaints and victimization roles. To help you reach the goal you have in mind!

[swansont]

 

Also what dogma am I parroting?

 

The above screed on global warming. It's an idealogical position, not based on fact, meaning it's dogma.

[jduff]

 

The above screed on global warming. It's an idealogical position, not based on fact, meaning it's dogma.

I agree with that. Global warming supporters/people are definitely ideologues!

[john5746]

Censorship?

You asked this with a link to an article broadcasting Rubio's position. He hasn't been censored, quite the opposite. His speech will get blasted everywhere and will be taken seriously. I guess the answer would be NO.

 

Facepalm? YES

 

 

I agree with that. Global warming supporters/people are definitely ideologues!

Along with the gravity and evolution ideologues.

Edited May 14, 2014 by john5746

[swansont]

I agree with that. Global warming supporters/people are definitely ideologues!

 

Non-Rubio-esque* citation needed.

 

*Rubio-esque = rectal reach

[Greg H.]

Along with the gravity and evolution ideologues.

As Bugs Bunny would say: "I know this violates the law of gravity, but I never studied law."

[iNow]

Yep, this will replace the "believe in evolution" question for Repub candidates as a litmus test. It will be interesting to see if ANY republican candidate will say they believe in man-made global warming.

Jon Huntsman did this during his bid in the 2012 republican primaries.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2012/10/19/jon-huntsman-says-the-gop-cant-be-the-anti-science-party

 

 

The result? He only got 1.2% of the vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012#Early_states_.28January_to_March.29

[John Cuthber]

John, I never claimed censorship. That was the answer given to the question the OP gave. The answer was also a question, not a statement. I see you did not differentiate between the two.

 

 

I asked you to explain yourself; you didn't.

http://xkcd.com/169/

Edited May 14, 2014 by John Cuthber

[jduff]

I asked you to explain yourself; you didn't.

http://xkcd.com/169/

Sure John. I will explain. The original question asked in this set of threads(The Title)asks "How to eliminate this? Which leads to the only possible way of eliminating such things without committing crime. Which would be censorship right? So when I typed censorship, I am asking is that acceptable and is there no other way. The key word is eliminate. That is a very definitive word and not broad. Why I brought up the question of censorship.

[imatfaal]

And what we have all been trying to get at is that we do not censor people from saying that 2+2=3 - we teach them that the correct answer is 4. Very few people who are touted as potential Vice Presidents of the United States would openly say they believe the moon is made from green cheese (actually with Palin and Quayle this might not be the greatest example) - they are not placed in this position through censorship, they refrain because they know that people will think them fools for believing such claptrap.

 

I put believing in a literal seven day creation myth in the same boat as believing the moon is made of green cheese - I would not categorise global warming denial as the same as it is extremely complex and too many details need to be worked out. But on a spectrum with Newton's Law of Motion, GR etc. at one end and Lunar Green Cheese at the other - a denial of anthropogenic climate change is very close to the fairy stories and far removed from the science.

 

We eliminate ignorance by education. We eliminate lies by unmasking the liar.

[swansont]

Sure John. I will explain. The original question asked in this set of threads(The Title)asks "How to eliminate this? Which leads to the only possible way of eliminating such things without committing crime. Which would be censorship right? So when I typed censorship, I am asking is that acceptable and is there no other way. The key word is eliminate. That is a very definitive word and not broad. Why I brought up the question of censorship.

 

Just because you can't think of another way does not mean there is no other way. Having repercussions for lying or being clueless is not generally considered censorship; lying for financial gain is often considered fraud. Lying about people can be defamation, slander and libel. Speech that is not protected in the US, and it's not censorship if you prosecute the perpetrators for their unprotected and illegal speech.

 

Being treated harshly by the press and the populace would be one solution, and not censorship; being free of censorship is not the same as being free of consequences. Being called out for such statements is not happening widely with the press at present, but it's a potential solution.

[jduff]

 

Just because you can't think of another way does not mean there is no other way. Having repercussions for lying or being clueless is not generally considered censorship; lying for financial gain is often considered fraud. Lying about people can be defamation, slander and libel. Speech that is not protected in the US, and it's not censorship if you prosecute the perpetrators for their unprotected and illegal speech.

 

Being treated harshly by the press and the populace would be one solution, and not censorship; being free of censorship is not the same as being free of consequences. Being called out for such statements is not happening widely with the press at present, but it's a potential solution.

But Swansont, none of what you said will even occur. If that were the case. Then our current president would already be impeached. Eric Holder would be in jail. Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid would both be locked up as well. John Boehner would be facing several criminal charges. Just to name a few! Not even counting our esteemed California congressmen and senators. Which is a whole different ball of wax!

 

I do not see that happening anytime soon. Nor do I see anything coming of the article that started this set of threads. At most, your explanation and or answers represents "wishful "thinking. In the imaginary world of the ideal. Your answer would most likely occur. But the reality of what we live in differs greatly from the ideal.

 

As far as the press goes. Exactly which press would become the martyr? Both me and you know the real deal concerning the press. It is not even real news anymore.

Edited May 15, 2014 by jduff