Naomi Oreskes, the "denialists" bane

[seer]

This thread isn't going to be about displaying your misogyny. Stop now, or leave.

First, why is that misogynistic? Do you have a new liberal definition that I don't know about? If it was a man, I would have suggested a good woman. And this is Sea's thread, I will only leave if he asks me.

Moderated By: rogue06

It is lao's thread. He is the one who started it. And he has asked that you stop with the remarks about Naomi Oreskes "needing a man" or else leave the thread.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[rogue06]

And likes to accuse people of advocating the death penalty.

What an ass.

That is exactly what several global warming advocates have done. I gave you multiple opportunities to distance yourself from that sort of rhetoric but in each instance you declined and instead sought to rationalize their support for executing vocal opponents.

[seer]

First, why is that misogynistic? Do you have a new liberal definition that I don't know about? If it was a man, I would have suggested a good woman. And this is Sea's thread, I will only leave if he asks me.

Moderated By: rogue06

It is lao's thread. He is the one who started it. And he has asked that you stop with the remarks about Naomi Oreskes "needing a man" or else leave the thread.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

Yes, you are right...

[Sea of red]

That is exactly what several global warming advocates have done. I gave you multiple opportunities to distance yourself from that sort of rhetoric but in each instance you declined and instead sought to rationalize their support for executing vocal opponents.

Oh, so now I'm rationalizing it rather than actually supporting it myself. What a cute little switcheroo!

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post208428

Why do you think that those who don't think that global warming is taking place and are vocal about it should be subject to capital punishment?

There it is right there, rogue my boy. You accused me of advocating absolutely anti-scientific and barbaric practices.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post208435

I replied back with:

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Pretty obvious that I'm denying your charge.

Your answer seems to suggest that you think that subjecting vocal critics of global warming to the death penalty is justified because some have called supporters of AGW "communists" and others have issued death threats.

Then you need to ask for a clarification in the future. My point was that it's not a one-way street. Plenty of people on the denial side of behaved not so nicely, yet you're not talking about that.

Once again, I'm trying to give YOU an opportunity to back off and see that you are in the wrong, but I wondered if you actually believed such stupid charge.

But that wasn't enough for you, was it now?
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post208496

Probably because of your initial remark about "poor persecuted climate change “skeptics”." I was pointing out that they might have good reason to feel a bit persecuted. And you still have said absolutely nothing to demonstrate that my assessment that you think that subjecting vocal critics of global warming to the death penalty is justified because some critics have behaved badly. In fact if anything I would say that you're doubling down.

I did everything I could to deny this and you continued to state it after my clarifications. Which tells me you're either trying to save face or you're just an ass that likes to shove words into other posters mouths. You owe me an apology, but I won't hold my breathe, as thus far you've shown no regard for the truth.

[rogue06]

Oh, so now I'm rationalizing it rather than actually supporting it myself. What a cute little switcheroo!

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post208428



There it is right there, rogue my boy. You accused me of advocating absolutely anti-scientific and barbaric practices.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post208435

My question was supposed to be in kind to the one that I thought that you asked me, which was "what is your problem with science?" Unfortunately I missed the use of "the" in the question ("what is your problem with the science?") so I misread the intent. That was a mistake by me.

I replied back with:

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Pretty obvious that I'm denying your charge.

Not really. My question wasn't a loaded question as you incorrectly claimed although this one was. It was pretty straightforward and a simple "yes" or "no" could suffice whereas your snarky response seemed to avoid giving an answer to mine and cannot be simply answered with a "yes" or "no". Your treating it as a loaded question was a mistake by you.

Then you need to ask for a clarification in the future. My point was that it's not a one-way street. Plenty of people on the denial side of behaved not so nicely, yet you're not talking about that.

Once again, I'm trying to give YOU an opportunity to back off and see that you are in the wrong, but I wondered if you actually believed such stupid charge.

That's a mighty odd way of giving someone an "opportunity to back off" since it basically is a rationalization: "Plenty of people on the denial side of behaved not so nicely." That was supposed to be what you called your "clarification"? That there are those on the other side who aren't behaving nicely?

But that wasn't enough for you, was it now?
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post208496

No. It wasn't. Probably because nothing you said could in any way be taken as anything but a snarky response and a rationalization for those calling for executing vocal opponents.

Then you need to ask for a clarification in the future. My point was that it's not a one-way street. Plenty of people on the denial side of behaved not so nicely, yet you're not talking about that.

Again in response to my query your answer sounds like an attempt to defend them.

Then you need to ask for a clarification in the future. My point was that it's not a one-way street. Plenty of people on the denial side of behaved not so nicely, yet you're not talking about that.

I did everything I could to deny this and you continued to state it after my clarifications.

If that's "everything I could" for you I would hate to see a half-hearted attempt.

Again, there was no effort at denial but rather one of rationalization: there are those on the other side behaving badly. How can you possibly construe that as a denial?

Which tells me you're either trying to save face or you're just an ass that likes to shove words into other posters mouths. You owe me an apology, but I won't hold my breathe, as thus far you've shown no regard for the truth.

Apology accepted.

[Jedidiah]

But even if the climate advocates had smaller houses, and flew coach, they'd still be part of the issue. If they totally left the grid, they'd have no voice at all (I can't see too many politicians getting around the world on bicycles or being taken seriously while living in a clay baked hut). Again, if they were successful in their endeavor to curb C02 emissions, and it resulted in the catastrophe some predict, the wealthy jet setting advocates would be the first ones to feel the crunch, wouldn't they?

What ever happens the people in power will be the last to feel the crunch, and the last to give up the high energy cost perks.

[seer]

What ever happens the people in power will be the last to feel the crunch, and the last to give up the high energy cost perks.

Exactly, it is not so much a question of AGW, but what the politicians with do with those studies to control our lives and benefit their own.

[Adrift]

What ever happens the people in power will be the last to feel the crunch, and the last to give up the high energy cost perks.

Exactly, it is not so much a question of AGW, but what the politicians with do with those studies to control our lives and benefit their own.

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly that the ones in power will be the last to feel any crunch, yet, if the predictions are true, they will eventually be affected by it. This seems like a basic truism for either side of the debate.

The thing is, I'm very wary of conspiracy theories that tell us that either side is malignantly holding onto their beliefs. I think its very possible that both sides actually hold beliefs that they think are factual. Certainly politics are involved that may sway individuals from side to side, but I honestly don't think that very many people on either side want to see the world ruined by global warming, or the world ruined by economic collapse. Again, there may be a small number of people who are looking at all of this from a very short-sighted perspective, but I have a hard time believing they all are.

[Sea of red]

My question was supposed to be in kind to the one that I thought that you asked me, which was "what is your problem with science?" Unfortunately I missed the use of "the" in the question ("what is your problem with the science?") so I misread the intent. That was a mistake by me.

Well at least you admit you don't read very carefully.

Not really. My question wasn't a loaded question as you incorrectly claimed although this one was. It was pretty straightforward and a simple "yes" or "no" could suffice whereas your snarky response seemed to avoid giving an answer to mine and cannot be simply answered with a "yes" or "no". Your treating it as a loaded question was a mistake by you.

It was a loaded question no different than "have you stopped beating your wife?" If I was to ask you "have you stopped doing drugs?" would you actually bother to give an answer that wasn't sarcastic? I've seen you do it, so don't act like you're dense.

That's a mighty odd way of giving someone an "opportunity to back off" since it basically is a rationalization: "Plenty of people on the denial side of behaved not so nicely." That was supposed to be what you called your "clarification"? That there are those on the other side who aren't behaving nicely?

In what world do you live? It was an equivocation, not a rationalization. Please learn the difference before you embarrass yourself further.

No. It wasn't. Probably because nothing you said could in any way be taken as anything but a snarky response and a rationalization for those calling for executing vocal opponents.

I think you knew I didn't advocate it, you just wanted to slander me in the thread as a distraction. Maybe you didn't want answer my original question; maybe you were just wanted to do some contrarian taking of the piss. I don't know. What matters is, you accused me of advocating a anti-scientific and barbaric practice, even after I tried to make it clear to you that I didn't.

It's not my problem that you don't understand sarcasm and tongue-in cheek remarks.

Again in response to my query your answer sounds like an attempt to defend them.

Maybe you should get some reading glasses.

If that's "everything I could" for you I would hate to see a half-hearted attempt.

I'm sorry, I can't take into account the troubles of the sarcasm impaired. But again, I think you knew what you were doing.

Apology accepted.

This blew-up in your face pretty badly, maybe you should just stop talking.

[seanD]

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly that the ones in power will be the last to feel any crunch, yet, if the predictions are true, they will eventually be affected by it. This seems like a basic truism for either side of the debate.

And this goes back to the hypocrisy factor. The hypocrisy factor becomes a major problem when we’re also dealing with a class issue. You may feel that the hypocrisy issue is weak, but the masses that are forced to make sacrifices won’t. Sure, there are a lot of diehard climate change advocates now (mainly here in the west), but wait until their energy bills skyrocket, their transportation bills skyrocket, they’re burdened down with draconian regulation of their energy use, and/or they have to pay some asinine carbon tax. You and I agree that the select ruling class will continue to fly in their private jets, ride in their limos and live in their carbon emitting estates. So if the masses are forced to make sacrifices while they believe the select ruling class that initiates the policies is exempt, the discontent will just highlight this hypocrisy factor even more (the populous masses have already become unruly against governing bodies worldwide as it is). And remember, this isn’t just a western problem; this is global. To me, the entire discussion about climate change science is moot. Economically and sociopolitical is where the rubber meets the road and where there are going to be major problems.

[Adrift]

And this goes back to the hypocrisy factor. The hypocrisy factor becomes a major problem when we’re also dealing with a class issue. You may feel that the hypocrisy issue is weak, but the masses that are forced to make sacrifices won’t. Sure, there are a lot of diehard climate change advocates now (mainly here in the west), but wait until their energy bills skyrocket, their transportation bills skyrocket, they’re burdened down with draconian regulation of their energy use, and/or they have to pay some asinine carbon tax. You and I agree that the select ruling class will continue to fly in their private jets, ride in their limos and live in their carbon emitting estates. So if the masses are forced to make sacrifices while they believe the select ruling class that initiates the policies is exempt, the discontent will just highlight this hypocrisy factor even more (the populous masses have already become unruly against governing bodies worldwide as it is). And remember, this isn’t just a western problem; this is global. To me, the entire discussion about climate change science is moot. Economically and sociopolitical is where the rubber meets the road and where there are going to be major problems.

But how long will it last? 5 years? 10? 20? Eventually even the rich and powerful will feel the full affects of their decisions. And, let's be honest, it's not only the rich and powerful that are vocal on either side.

[Jaecp]

Not to mention that a lot of the rich, particular the coal companies or whatever, have a massive vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

[One Bad Pig]

Not to mention that a lot of the rich, particular the coal companies or whatever, have a massive vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

A lot of the rich own coal companies?

[JonF]

A lot of the rich have significant stakes in fossil fuel companies.

Pretty much all the top executives of fossil fuels and related companies are among the rich.

They have a vested interest.

[One Bad Pig]

A lot of the rich have significant stakes in fossil fuel companies.

I'm pretty sure you're just guessing here (and moving the goalposts).

Pretty much all the top executives of fossil fuels and related companies are among the rich.

They have a vested interest.

The top executives of any company that's doing a lot of business are among the rich. Depending on your definition of "rich." The vast majority of Fortune 500 companies are not in the fossil fuels industry.