House 'Sciences' committee makes US a laughingstock by tweeting Breitbart fake news

[Zymologist]

What do you want me to do?

Not sure. Take it as a lesson for the future, maybe?

Things like that encourage me to try not to do the same. I fail, and I hate it. I just wish people could get along with each other. I'm a big softie, at heart.

[Leonhard]

Not sure. Take it as a lesson for the future, maybe?

Things like that encourage me to try not to do the same. I fail, and I hate it. I just wish people could get along with each other. I'm a big softie, at heart.

I just don't know what you want me to do differently?

[robrecht]

I'm not really a "climate skeptic," or a denialist, or whatever...I'm just an ordinary guy that wonders things upon occasion.

But I'll say this, and probably not respond in this thread again: from what I've seen, it looks like there's something to AGW. I have a few questions about it all, some things that I wonder about in general, but I will not ask them. If somebody wonders why that is, all I can say is that the insane intolerance of the left for anybody daring to ask a question on the topic has succeeded in shutting me up about it.

So, congratulations, I guess. You've succeeded in silencing me, at least. Instead of using the science to persuade and educate, you've used it to bludgeon. Maybe instead of ranting about how anti-science and stupid everyone who disagrees with you is (or even somebody, like me, who simply wonders), you could have listened and reasoned. Easier to demonize than listen, I guess. There's a lesson in there for all of us.

That's not my experience here. I know there are people here who are more than willing to patiently explain the science and entertain questions at a basic level for those who are willing to engage in genuine discussion. I can probably search for and dig up some old threads if you're interested, or you could start your own. Personally, I have zero expertise in this area, but I know others here do.

[Starlight]

Since your comments about approving of infanticide, and your general attitude, you've lost just about all standing here.

Yeah most the posters on this site are pretty hilarious. They seem to regularly lose their minds about abortion, and trying to talk rationally and factually with them gets nowhere fast as you are seeing in this thread.

[Zymologist]

That's not my experience here. I know there are people here who are more than willing to patiently explain the science and entertain questions at a basic level for those who are willing to engage in genuine discussion. I can probably search for and dig up some old threads if you're interested, or you could start your own. Personally, I have zero expertise in this area, but I know others here do.

Hasn't been my experience, here or elsewhere. But I won't be starting any threads about it (although I've thought about it).

I suppose my post was intended more as a general encouragement to self-reflection. It probably wasn't phrased very well; I'm a lousy communicator, and can't get my thoughts across very well. If your observations have been different...not much I can say.

[Leonhard]

Yeah most the posters on this site are pretty hilarious. They seem to regularly lose their minds about abortion, and trying to talk rationally and factually with them gets nowhere fast as you are seeing in this thread.

You could start by having a genuine change of heart on infanticide. And I'm with them on it. Hence I'm kinda sad you were the one to open this post. By virtue of you being the one writing it.

[Leonhard]

Hasn't been my experience, here or elsewhere. But I won't be starting any threads about it (although I've thought about it).

I suppose my post was intended more as a general encouragement to self-reflection. It probably wasn't phrased very well; I'm a lousy communicator, and can't get my thoughts across very well. If your observations have been different...not much I can say.

I'd love to change my approach if it would help you.

Its just hard to do when all I'm told is that I'm intolerant, and I'm bludgeoning you on the head?

[Zymologist]

I'd love to change my approach if it would help you.

Its just hard to do when all I'm told is that I'm intolerant, and I'm bludgeoning you on the head?

Well, my first reaction would be: it's hard to enter the conversation when all I'm told is that I'm a science-denying idiot. My post wasn't specifically directed at you, so you might not want to worry about it. Honestly, it would be tough for the left-wing members of an open forum like this to change my mind, given how entrenched the pattern of dismissal seems to be. The only way it might happen, at least for me, is via PMs.

[Starlight]

You could start by having a genuine change of heart on infanticide.

Assuming a person is anti-abortion, and believes that fetuses of any age are genuinely human 'persons' and that all killing of them is therefore essentially murder... would any such person take the view that killing a fetus at age X is worse than killing it at age Y? Surely both are equally murder from their point of view? So I tend to assume that tantrums thrown about my unconcern with the age at which abortions are done, are simply disingenuous on their part. I will never have an abortion myself, because I am not a woman, so the subject in no way affects me personally, but I am pro-choice like most of the entire rest of the Western world, and find the entire subject unworthy of much discussion.

[Carrikature]

At the end of the day there's more than one way to skin a goat. While I believe its going to be harder without a carbon tax, as that's the most broad way to do things (with its own problems), the alternative is to basically nuke subsidies for coal and oil. All of the subsidies, especially the hidden subsidy for coal power where they get to rent land at less than a third of its rated value. All of that would significantly raise the price of coal, and quite change when the transition to renewable energy would happen.

I'm generally against subsidies, period. It's impossible to know the best solution (economically or otherwise) without a level playing field.

[Carrikature]

You could start by having a genuine change of heart on infanticide. And I'm with them on it. Hence I'm kinda sad you were the one to open this post. By virtue of you being the one writing it.

This sounds like justifying well-poisoning.

[Carrikature]

Assuming a person is anti-abortion, and believes that fetuses of any age are genuinely human 'persons' and that all killing of them is therefore essentially murder... would any such person take the view that killing a fetus at age X is worse than killing it at age Y? Surely both are equally murder from their point of view? So I tend to assume that tantrums thrown about my unconcern with the age at which abortions are done, are simply disingenuous on their part. I will never have an abortion myself, because I am not a woman, so the subject in no way affects me personally, but I am pro-choice like most of the entire rest of the Western world, and find the entire subject unworthy of much discussion.

Yes. They can and do. Your general dismissal of their complaints is part of the problem.

[Carrikature]

I'm not really a "climate skeptic," or a denialist, or whatever...I'm just an ordinary guy that wonders things upon occasion.

But I'll say this, and probably not respond in this thread again: from what I've seen, it looks like there's something to AGW. I have a few questions about it all, some things that I wonder about in general, but I will not ask them. If somebody wonders why that is, all I can say is that the insane intolerance of the left for anybody daring to ask a question on the topic has succeeded in shutting me up about it.

So, congratulations, I guess. You've succeeded in silencing me, at least. Instead of using the science to persuade and educate, you've used it to bludgeon. Maybe instead of ranting about how anti-science and stupid everyone who disagrees with you is (or even somebody, like me, who simply wonders), you could have listened and reasoned. Easier to demonize than listen, I guess. There's a lesson in there for all of us.

I kinda have to wonder why these questions can't be investigated without involving other people. It's not like the information isn't readily available, afaict. Maybe just ask for a few resources to read or whatever. The IPCC review is a great (and easily understood) place to start.

[Sea of red]

I'm not interested in getting into yet another climate change debate. You people have the tendency to promulgate your beliefs with sufficient fervor to put a religious fanatic to shame, and then wonder why we don't take all your claims seriously.

I don't think it matters how you're approached on the subject. You've made up your mind based on your very strong political commitments and nothing else.

It burns you up to think that after all of your mocking of those on the left for taking the issue seriously, that they might just be right. That's why you dig your heels into the ground and project your flawed way of thinking on to others.

[Sea of red]

Well, my first reaction would be: it's hard to enter the conversation when all I'm told is that I'm a science-denying idiot. My post wasn't specifically directed at you, so you might not want to worry about it. Honestly, it would be tough for the left-wing members of an open forum like this to change my mind, given how entrenched the pattern of dismissal seems to be. The only way it might happen, at least for me, is via PMs.

It's not like the political right hasn't also done their share of shaming people and constructing caricatures of those they disagree with. The wingers of have called myself and others "tree hungers", "Marxists", "hippies" and "environazi's".

If you really want to become educated then a quick trip on Google to any scientific academy will suffice.