A Place for Conservatives

[Bawse Dawg]

I don't ignore it. It is just the same thing every time.

Step 1 - Lookup climateskeptic.com or desmoblog.com
Step 1.5 - Lookup the top 10 ways to debunk climate skeptics
Step 1.75 - Copy and paste from said websites
Step 2 - Find the name of the scientist that I post about
Step 3 - Say that they were on Fox News or Breitbart likes them
Step 4 - Say those sources are horrible and therefore what the scientist spent 45 minutes explaining in great detail is false.

Rinse and repeat.

He obliterates nothing. Dr. Moore laid out the science about why there is room for skepticism. He did the same as every other video I posted. These videos go against the climate change dogma and are therefore dismissed by those that believe in climate change.

Lol no. Your 'source' has never published a scientific paper and was not a founding member of Greenpeace. Which were the credentials you gave him when you made that post. He did research to prove why that dude is not a good source, you are the one dismissing views that you don't like or fit your agenda.

 

[Heathme]

Lol no. Your 'source' has never published a scientific paper and was not a founding member of Greenpeace. Which were the credentials you gave him when you made that post. He did research to prove why that dude is not a good source, you are the one dismissing views that you don't like or fit your agenda.

Pretty typical of you. So you did not watch the video and hear why he is plenty qualified to discuss climate change? I posted that he was an original member of Greenpeace, which is true.

This article explains the key reason I have every right to be skeptical of climate change hysteria from the scientists that Red posts about.

https://townhall.com/columnists/stephenmoore/2018/12/18/follow-the-climate-change-money-n2537638

"...the tidal wave of funding does reveal a powerful financial motive for scientists to conclude that the apocalypse is upon us. No one hires a fireman if there are no fires. No one hires a climate scientist (there are thousands of them now) if there is no catastrophic change in the weather."

"How dare I impugn the integrity of scientists and left-wing think tanks by suggesting that their findings are perverted by hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer handouts. The irony of this indignation is that any academic whose research dares question the "settled science" of the climate change complex is instantly accused of being a shill for the oil and gas industry or the Koch brothers.

Apparently, if you take money from the private sector to fund research, your work is inherently biased, but if you get multimillion-dollar grants from Uncle Sam, you are as pure as the freshly fallen snow."

"This tsunami of government money distorts science in hidden ways that even the scientists who are corrupted often don't appreciate. If you are a young eager-beaver researcher who decides to devote your life to the study of global warming, you're probably not going to do your career any good or get famous by publishing research that the crisis isn't happening.

But if you've built bogus models that predict the crisis is getting worse by the day, then step right up and get a multimillion-dollar grant."

 

[Getting Traded]

Uh oh. A scientist has left the 97% path...

Dr. Patrick Moore. PhD in Ecology. One of the original members of Greenpeace. If you have any questions about his credentials just listen to the first 5 minutes.

Climate change discussion begins at 9:00.

This butthole is an advocate for GMOs -- so much for his scientific credentials. He's probably getting paid to spread this false narrative.

 

[Heathme]

Here is a very pragmatic way to discuss climate change:

 

[Gameface]

This butthole is an advocate for GMOs -- so much for his scientific credentials. He's probably getting paid to spread this false narrative.

GMOs make our world a better place.

 

[Alfalfa]

This butthole is an advocate for GMOs -- so much for his scientific credentials. He's probably getting paid to spread this false narrative.

Nothing wrong with GMO. Stop spreading misinformation. You've already done enough damage with your anti-vaxx talk.

 

[Red]

I don't ignore it. It is just the same thing every time.

Dr. Moore laid out the science about why there is room for skepticism.

Well, I'll say this. I could have just let it go. But, I went and said "oh no, not Moore", and basically just offered a different point of view regarding the good doctor. But, I could have let it go, because we are not going to, and never were going to, solve the climate change debate in this thread.

You may not realize it, but I am not at all unsympathetic to what you were hoping to do with this thread. Just read what I said in comment #50. I recognize liberals and conservatives alike are fellow Americans, and this is a war we seem to be engaged in at this moment in our history. It actually has very deep roots, but that too is really beyond the scope of this thread.

I may be a sap, but I thought you had the right to hope it would be a thread by, and for, conservatives. Unfortunetly, that did not happen, it blew up in a hurry, and despite saying I would respect your wishes for your thread, you had to go promote the Heartland Institute. Lol. But it was your right, it was indeed. So, I went against my better nature, and did not let it go as just that one initial comment.

Further, I believe dissent and skepticism are not, nor should they ever be, regarded as interlopers within science. Dissent and skepticism are good for science. In comment #305, I specifically spelled out two periods in the history of science, during which the consensus was proven to be all wet. One instance from American archaeology and prehistory, and one instance from planatery geology.

I'm sure we could find other instances in the history of science, which, as Thomas Kuhn sagely observed, too often advances "one funeral at a time". Time and again within scientific disciplines, careers are sacrificed on the altar of consensus. And pioneers are often unrecognized in their own lifetimes, discarded by the twin weapons of conformity and received wisdom, the weapons wielded by consensus and dominant paradigms.

So, while I believe the consensus on human caused global warming is correct, and Dr. Moore is just another outlier, I would never say he must be silenced.

I just countered your portrait of Moore with a different slant. But I could have just let it go, and perhaps I should have. What we have in common as Americans has to be more important then our differences. Someday, I hope.

 

[Stoked]

Nothing wrong with GMO. Stop spreading misinformation. You've already done enough damage with your anti-vaxx talk.

Wait, he’s anti-vax? Hahahahahaha

 

[fishonjazz]

Wait, he’s anti-vax? Hahahahahaha

From what I read of the discussion he isn't exactly anti vax but he does have some questions and concerns in his mind about whether vaccinations are completely safe.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

I recommend, if you haven't already, watching Joe Rogan's latest podcast with Jones. It's one of the more entertaining podcasts I've ever heard/seen. Watch that and tell me Jones hasn't, wasn't, isn't dealing with psychosis. He's literally the God damn definition of psychosis in every way possible.

I never thought I would have listened to a podcast with Jones because he's too much for me, but just trust me on this one. It's gold.

Holy ****. I dont know if I can finish. Does Rogan let him go on for four hours?

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

I like John Stossel a lot. It might blow several minds, but I was a libertarian warrior on jazzfanz for many many years. But no one (by no one I mean most of the liberal minded people here) ever took my disclaimers seriously. I said plainly that we DO NOT live in a libertarian nation. That you can NOT get to libertarianism from "here" (meaning within the constitutional framework of the United States). And most importantly, that libertarianism DOES NOT work piece meal. Meaning that you cannot pass this libertarian law and that libertarian law within a non-libertarian framework and expect libertarianism to work. I beat my head on that wall for many many years here. One Brow is one who I would assume might remember. Babe used to send me encouraging DMs telling me to keep up the fight. I think it was NAOS or idestroyedthetoilet who sent me a DM saying that eventually I'd grow up and out of my libertarian idealism.

Anyway, if I wanted to play libertarian advocate I would destroy any of this boards so-called neo-con libertarians with the actual consistency in my ideological premise on libertarianism, because I actually understand what libertarianism means, good and bad (there is plenty of both).

But I made a decision after my first perma-ban, I decided I didn't want to make philosophical/ideological arguments in debates that were fundamentally utilitarian. I was going to argue based on the world we live in and not based on the world I thought we "should" live in. I was going to advocate for making this non-libertarian nation as good as it could be.

Now, you want to talk to me about how things should work in the first colony of people on Mars, I'm going to make a VERY extreme argument for libertarianism. You want to talk to me about how food stamps should work, I'm not going to lean on libertarian principals AT ALL. It makes no sense in that context.

If that was me whatever it was was definitely said lightheartedly. I remember complimenting you back then on having the most logically consistent philosophy of anyone on the board. I'd rather have something like that be what I'm remembered by.

 

[Archie Moses]

Holy ****. I dont know if I can finish. Does Rogan let him go on for four hours?

There's no better way to spend 4 hours than watching it all. Jones is straight up from another world. It's hilarious how many people get upset by what he says - he's koo koo.

Now time to take some DMT and talk to the machine elves and try and convince them not to take over the government interdimensionally.