Green Options › Forums › Climate Change › News & Policy › Which skeptic do you find the most and least tolerable?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Which skeptic do you find the most and least tolerable? - Page 5

post #121 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by dana1981 View Post

I had to put this quote on record because my jaw literally dropped when I read it.

In response to the question "Why the HECK did Reagan remove the solar panels from the white house that carter put up?", James E, who is currently the top active denier answerer in the  YA global warming section, said
 


And you thought his Dow Chemical conspiracy theory was bad.  Wow.  Just....wow.

Someone should point out to James the Carter-era solar panels weren't photovoltaics and didn't generate electricity, they heated water.  They were also recycled to a college somewhere in the northeast.  I forget where exactly.  No, don't bother, he wouldn't believe this anyway. 

I love James.  He is so totally out there it is funny. 
post #122 of 197
Thread Starter 
The used them in Unity College, for about 12 years according to another answer.  There were just so many ridiculously wrong things in James' answer that it blew me away.  He even equated space-based solar power with Reagan's Star Wars program.  I swear he just plucks random concepts out of the air and tries to string them together.

I think 'out there' is a nice way to put it.  The man is freaking nuts.  Of course since he disproved the greenhouse effect in his mother's basement, he's undoubtedly an idiot savant.
post #123 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by dana1981 View Post

The used them in Unity College, for about 12 years according to another answer.  There were just so many ridiculously wrong things in James' answer that it blew me away.  He even equated space-based solar power with Reagan's Star Wars program.  I swear he just plucks random concepts out of the air and tries to string them together.

I think 'out there' is a nice way to put it.  The man is freaking nuts.  Of course since he disproved the greenhouse effect in his mother's basement, he's undoubtedly an idiot savant.

Seriously, I think he has some biological brain problem, something like schizophrenia or maybe he suffers from the effects of a traumatic brain injury. 

The only one who comes close to James is Heretic, who was totally nuts as well, but couldn't even write coherently so it made it even more amusing reading his questions and answers.  My goal was to get those two into a discussion with each other, creating a delusion vortex.  It might have destroyed the universe, but damn it would have been amusing. 
post #124 of 197
Thread Starter 
We've got another gem from jim z today that should also go on the record.

Quote:
As a geologist...What I am suggesting is that if we emit more CO2, that CO2 will be absorbed by the ocean and increase the natural carbon sequestering.

He needs to stop using the phrase "as a geologist", because he's making geologists look really bad.

I mean geez, the guy knows the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen 40% over the past 150 years, increasing at an accelerating rate, but anyday now the ocean will start absorbing it all!

I'm beginning to wonder from what online university he got his geology degree.
post #125 of 197
The reference to Feldman's book - I think he has never travelled and had to interact with people in other cultures.

In India you never ask a question of subordinates you don't already have a very good idea about or preferably already know the answer because it is almost guaranteed you will be lied to. It isn't even considered lying but is referred to as 'bluffing'. There, from childhood kids learn to always protect themselves and their turf - that is all that counts.

Much of Asia is similar in that knowledge is power so even if someone knows the answer they will lie about it to try to mislead another.

In engineering it is exceedingly difficult to accomplish anything with everyone lying to each other. The first thing I had to do was to make a new set of rules as related to interpersonal relationships/exchanges - no lying! Over the years it slowly took over in my group or at least to a workable extent. People learned that the easiest way to get into deep doo-doo was to lie to the boss and get caught.

I am sure the US is no longer as it was when I was growing up but lying used to be a big no-no! 

One rule I firmly believe in is never lie to yourself - even about simple stuff.
post #126 of 197
I don't find him intolerable, but Andy certainly is amusing.  I distinctly recall him saying he belongs to or is part of some scientific organization.  I would love to know which one!  Normally his answers are funny for their sheer ignorance, but this question may top them.
post #127 of 197
Quote:
For example, Eric C probably understands the mid-troposphere perfectly well, but doesn't care because he can score points with it.
 

I disagree.  I think Eric thinks he understands far more than he actually does.  Case in point.
post #128 of 197
Thread Starter 
Yeah the thing about andy is that he really just doesn't even understand the most basic climate science.  Like in the question you link, in response to a comment I made about water vapor he said

Quote:
Wow, water vapor is important only in feedback, but not in causing climate change? This makes no sense to me. Either it plays a role or it doesn't.

Understanding that water vapor is a feedback and not a forcing is such a basic step.  This is what really bugs me, when people don't even understand the basics and yet are convinced AGW is wrong.

Eric understands the basics, but I agree, I don't think he understands the hot spot simply because he doesn't want to understand it.  Which is why most deniers have such a poor understanding.  It's not that they're incapable of learning the basic science, it's that they don't want to believe it's accurate.  In fact they need to believe it's not.  So you ask them to explain where the basic physics is wrong and they start babbling about how computer models are unreliable or "radiative forcing" is just a made-up term that doesn't mean anything (jim z actually made this argument once).

I agree that eric c is perfectly capable of understanding the basics of the hot spot issue, if he would allow himself to understand it.  But he won't.
post #129 of 197
It is none of my business, but is surprising to find this thread is still going on - it's nothing but arrogance, and the least tolerable thread.
post #130 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mota View Post

It is none of my business, but is surprising to find this thread is still going on - it's nothing but arrogance, and the least tolerable thread.
 
Thanks for your ironic input.  No need to participate if you don't like it.  I find it to be a useful forum for venting some frustration. 
post #131 of 197
Thread Starter 
It's not arrogance to talk about the ignorance of others.  And as captaint said, it's a way to vent frustrations.
post #132 of 197
I don't mean to be rude, Mota.  I think you are looking at this through a different prism than Dana, myself and others.  We spend a good deal of time on another forum where willful ignorance and even outright lying is the norm for self-described skeptics.  They take advantage of a public forum to deliberately confuse people and knowingly spread misinformation.  It has caused many knowledgeable to leave the forum, but some of us still go there to fight the tide.  I don't view these people in the same light as true skeptics and those who honestly approach the science of AGW.  I have nothing but contempt for them.  I sometimes express that here where perhaps context is lost.
post #133 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mota View Post

It is none of my business, but is surprising to find this thread is still going on - it's nothing but arrogance, and the least tolerable thread.
 

Well, maybe you could point out to everyone where our analysis of common skeptic behaviors is inaccurate, and then we could discuss that.  Otherwise, you haven't added anything constructive to the debate, and simply contributed your own arrogance to the mix.  I find these sorts of "bomb" posts like yours the height of internet arrogance, since I doubt you will even defend your position. 

You may not like this discussion, but it does get across that skeptics are all the same really, and unless they start explaining their skepticism in terms of the basic science in rational terms, without ending up ranting about politics, they make themselves objects of derision, just the same as kooks who believe there are huge alien relics on Mars or any one of the dozens of other crackpot theories out there on the internet.  If you feel that characterization is in error, explain why the skeptics are right and all the other climate scientists who actually know this stuff are wrong. 
post #134 of 197
⇒(1) It's not arrogance to talk about the ignorance of others.
⇒(2) It has caused many knowledgeable to leave the forum, but some of us still go there to fight the tide.
⇒(3) maybe you could point out to everyone where our analysis of common skeptic behaviors is inaccurate, and then we could discuss that.
⇒(4) If you feel that characterization is in error, explain why the skeptics are right and all the other climate scientists who actually know this stuff are wrong.

Glad to hear good responses.
(1) If to discriminate others as ignorant is not arrogance, then what could it be? It may not be arrogant if it is done properly and moderately, but I feel the way it is going is very inappropriate. It just seems like arrogant retaliation of a winning group.
(2) It's admirable to go to fight with those skeptics for yourself. But, I don't see much of positive influence from a group of "knowledgeable correct people" get together and criticize and bash "ignorant skeptics".
(3) I have no interest to analyze or discuss about skeptic behaviors. Everyone has a right to do so, and I have a right to express my thought and feeling. So, I have no need to defend myself. All I am saying is "Hey, it's ugly, do it better or somewhere else".
(4) I never said skeptics are right and those who knows are wrong. I would agree all other climate scientists who knows the stuff are right for now. We know so little about nature that we always need to be skeptic.
post #135 of 197
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mota View Post

(1) If to discriminate others as ignorant is not arrogance, then what could it be? It may not be arrogant if it is done properly and moderately, but I feel the way it is going is very inappropriate. It just seems like arrogant retaliation of a winning group.
(2) It's admirable to go to fight with those skeptics for yourself. But, I don't see much of positive influence from a group of "knowledgeable correct people" get together and criticize and bash "ignorant skeptics".
(3) I have no interest to analyze or discuss about skeptic behaviors. Everyone has a right to do so, and I have a right to express my thought and feeling. So, I have no need to defend myself. All I am saying is "Hey, it's ugly, do it better or somewhere else".
 

1) Calling a spade a spade isn't discriminating against the spade.  Some people are ignorant about climate science.  Pointing that out is not discrimination.

2) The positive influence is that it allows us to let steam off and vent frustrations.

3) You're entitled to your opinion, but you're not really entitled to tell us to go somewhere else.  This is our somewhere else, and it's not your site to dictate what we do here.
post #136 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mota View Post

⇒(1) It's not arrogance to talk about the ignorance of others.
⇒(2) It has caused many knowledgeable to leave the forum, but some of us still go there to fight the tide.
⇒(3) maybe you could point out to everyone where our analysis of common skeptic behaviors is inaccurate, and then we could discuss that.
⇒(4) If you feel that characterization is in error, explain why the skeptics are right and all the other climate scientists who actually know this stuff are wrong.

Glad to hear good responses.
(1) If to discriminate others as ignorant is not arrogance, then what could it be? It may not be arrogant if it is done properly and moderately, but I feel the way it is going is very inappropriate. It just seems like arrogant retaliation of a winning group.
(2) It's admirable to go to fight with those skeptics for yourself. But, I don't see much of positive influence from a group of "knowledgeable correct people" get together and criticize and bash "ignorant skeptics".
(3) I have no interest to analyze or discuss about skeptic behaviors. Everyone has a right to do so, and I have a right to express my thought and feeling. So, I have no need to defend myself. All I am saying is "Hey, it's ugly, do it better or somewhere else".
(4) I never said skeptics are right and those who knows are wrong. I would agree all other climate scientists who knows the stuff are right for now. We know so little about nature that we always need to be skeptic.
 
1.  I don't believe I am "discriminating".  If you think I am being arrogant, then so be it.  I've been called worse.  Frankly the opinion of someone who knows nothing about me and whom I know nothing about is virtually meaningless.  Thanks for sharing it, though.
2.  Admirable?  Not really.  I see nothing particularly admirable about anonymously posting on a poorly moderated forum.  It's nice that you think so, though.  As for positive influence, that's not the goal here.  Not everything I do and say in my life is intended to make some positive contribution.  If you live your life that way, kudos.  Perhaps I should, but that hardly seems realistic.
3.  I don't understand this point at all.  Nobody is talking about "rights".  If you are going to suggest that people stop talking or go somewhere else, then you certainly will need to defend yourself.  Express away, Mota.  Expect to get "expressed" back at.  If you don't like it feel free to move along or keep your opinions to yourself.  Your call.  And, as Dana noted, this is "somewhere else" for us.  I am within the stated community guidelines, so I think it is unnecessary to leave.
4.  I think I can speak for most people who post on this thread when I say we are all skeptics.  Being skeptical is part of being involved in science.  It really should go without saying.  The people we are referring to in a derogatory manner arrogantly call themselves skeptics as though it is a stance on global warming instead of a philosophy.  They have called me and others every name in the book.  They dedicate a good deal of time to baiting and insulting Dana, specifically.
It's not necessarily about right and wrong (though sometimes it is).  Science is about explaining natural phenomenons, among other things.  Currently there is a well supported explanation for the warming of the last 150+ years.  Self-described "skeptics" have a hundred explanations, none of which stands up to the slightest bit of scrutiny.  Thus they aren't skeptics.  I wouldn't even call them ignorant, as I find that insulting to ignorant people.  Ignorance implies you don't know/haven't learned.  These people have been told and have the information available.  They choose to deny it, ignore it and twist it for whatever reason (personal/political/etc.).  If you find me to be arrogant because I choose to marginalize them, then so be it.
post #137 of 197
I guess I opened a can of worms, and now you are trying to fully open it.

Calling a spade a spade is fine, but how it makes other people feel is an another issue. I am also calling a spade a spade, and obviously made you feel offended.

I did not mean to ask you to go somewhere else; it's my internal feeling that was expressed as a response to your questions. (And, please do not pick one particular part.) 

As I respect everyone's thoughts and feelings, it's fine to continue the thread. I simply said "here is one member who feels uncomfortable and inappropriate towards the thread". Is it difficult to accept my feeling?
post #138 of 197
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mota View Post

Calling a spade a spade is fine, but how it makes other people feel is an another issue. I am also calling a spade a spade, and obviously made you feel offended.

 


The people we discuss here don't frequent this site.  That's why we discuss them here instead of on Yahoo Answers.  It's like how you complain about your boss at home but not at work.  Since the deniers on YA rarely visit this site, it doesn't "make them feel" anything.  Just like when I complain about my boss to my wife, it doesn't bother my boss, because she doesn't know about it.

You called me arrogant.  I don't think I'm an arrogant person, and I don't think you know me well enough to make that conclusion.  That is not calling a spade a spade. 

I also don't know why you say I'm obviously offended, because all I did was correct your error.  As with captaint, frankly I don't really care about your opinion of me.  You're just some guy on the internet.
post #139 of 197
You gave the hornet's nest one very hard kick Mota!

If you want to create some excitement I think you found the perfect way.

I believe that from a cultural basis you have a more considerate viewpoint of others than many ethnic groups do. Us Anglo Saxon types (meaning myself for one) tend to be far more aggressive in stating our feelings.  

We all love you and I hope everyone can accept you feelings!

I, for one, would like to hear more about your plant watering scheme - now that I actually have a garden and water system to try it on. 
Edited by Russ - 8/21/09 at 11:03am
post #140 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mota View Post

Glad to hear good responses.
(1) If to discriminate others as ignorant is not arrogance, then what could it be? It may not be arrogant if it is done properly and moderately, but I feel the way it is going is very inappropriate. It just seems like arrogant retaliation of a winning group.
(2) It's admirable to go to fight with those skeptics for yourself. But, I don't see much of positive influence from a group of "knowledgeable correct people" get together and criticize and bash "ignorant skeptics".
(3) I have no interest to analyze or discuss about skeptic behaviors. Everyone has a right to do so, and I have a right to express my thought and feeling. So, I have no need to defend myself. All I am saying is "Hey, it's ugly, do it better or somewhere else".
(4) I never said skeptics are right and those who knows are wrong. I would agree all other climate scientists who knows the stuff are right for now. We know so little about nature that we always need to be skeptic.
 

You would have a completely different take on skeptics if you had ever tried to discuss anything with them.  The only group of more intellectually rigid, regressive thinking, insulting, and disagreeable people on the planet right now are the right-wing nutbars attending the healthcare forums (although I suspect the two groups are one and the same).  As Barney Frank put it, discussing something with them is like discussing things with a kitchen table, and I have no desire to do that. 

Nothing anyone says on the internet has any positive societal benefit, and this whole forum is a shining example of that, and for you to think this discussion has any impact other than personal entertainment for the few involved is the height of intellectual arrogance.  Nobody cares what we write here and I can virtually guarantee that if there are any skeptics reading this thread, they care not a speck for our opinions of them.  Finally, if you find these things offensive do what millions of people do when they don't like freely available entertainment, turn the channel.  Nobody forced you to read this. 
post #141 of 197
Please remember the thread is publicized; it is expected other members, who do not know anything about those "deniers", read the thread and feel differently from main participants. I am one of them, and only one who expressed feeling.

 The way I said might have been offensive or rude, but the bottom line is that the thread made me feel the way I mentioned, and you all do not like my comment. I have not offended or criticized anyone personally, nor asked you to go somewhere else.

I understand and accept how you feel, but my feeling is not a mistake and no need to be corrected. You can deny or reject it, but it would be inappropriate to try to change it. I am sorry to be a wet blanket, but again the thread is publicized. You should be expected to hear different opinions which may be or may not be favorable.

⇒ I believe that from a cultural basis you have a more considerate viewpoint of others than many ethnic groups do. Us Anglo Saxon types (meaning myself for one) tend to be far more aggressive in stating our feelings.

I enjoyed this paragraph. We may be more considerate, but in different viewpoint. As you say Anglo Saxon are more aggressive in stating feelings, but I learned it does not mean more receptive to others feelings. In the east and west, there is not much difference in our core. What makes us different is environment and circumstance.

As regards Electrolysis water farming, I will send you more information if you let me know of your mail address.

 
post #142 of 197
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mota View Post

 I have not offended or criticized anyone personally, nor asked you to go somewhere else.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mota View Post

It is none of my business, but is surprising to find this thread is still going on - it's nothing but arrogance
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mota View Post

All I am saying is "Hey, it's ugly, do it better or somewhere else".

Just FYI, you're claiming you never said things you said.  Anyway you're entitled to your opinions and to voice them, as we're entitled to disagree with you and voice that as well.

Back on topic, I think david b is probably currently the most tolerable denier.  He says some ridiculous things sometimes, but also seems perfectly reasonable at times, and fairly well-informed.  I'm not really sure what to make of him.
post #143 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by dana1981 View Post

Back on topic, I think david b is probably currently the most tolerable denier.  He says some ridiculous things sometimes, but also seems perfectly reasonable at times, and fairly well-informed.  I'm not really sure what to make of him.

I'd agree. And not just because we have the same name and are from the same city. He also seems to have changed his tone a bit from when he first started to contribute to YA and now seems pretty receptive to the idea that GHG's are causing the warming.
post #144 of 197
That's exactly what I am saying from the beginning. I voiced those you mentioned as response to questions.

If this thread were not created by a moderator, I might have ignored.
post #145 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawei View Post




I'd agree. And not just because we have the same name and are from the same city. He also seems to have changed his tone a bit from when he first started to contribute to YA and now seems pretty receptive to the idea that GHG's are causing the warming.

He said I seem "reasonable" one day, so I'm inclined to agree.
post #146 of 197
You guys have the skeptics in rare form this morning on Y!A.  Nice work. 
post #147 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by gcnp58 View Post

You guys have the skeptics in rare form this morning on Y!A.  Nice work. 

 

I emailed Dana about Andy calling Jim Z a "crackpot".  Too funny!
post #148 of 197
Thread Starter 
I mean they just make it so easy by constantly making statements with no supporting evidence which are easily disproven with a 30 second Google search.

But yes, this exchange was priceless.

Quote (andy):
Actually Jim z is a crack pot.

Quote (jim z):
A crack pot huh? Usually you get that kind of uninformed crap from alarmists...Andy is one of the most gullible people I have seen in a while

Awesome.  It's so rare to see a denier correct another denier's lie, let alone actually attack him.  The rest of andy's answer was full of his standard ignorant incorrect statements, but he's earned best answer for the crackpot admission!
post #149 of 197
That wasn't even the exchange I was talking about.  Soon the skeptics will realize all of their pet theories are incompatible and start to fight over whose is "really right."  Then it will "honey, put another bag of popcorn in the microwave, this is getting good!"  I especially like James today, with his ocean heat storage ideas. 

Web browser:  Free
Broadband Internet Connection:  $25/Month
Personal Computer:  $500
Not having the faintest clue about physics:  priceless
post #150 of 197
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gcnp58 View Post

Soon the skeptics will realize all of their pet theories are incompatible and start to fight over whose is "really right." 
 

You think so?  They've managed not to argue about their contradictory theories for 3-4 years now.

I don't even bother to read James' answers anymore.  You know when there's a movie that's so bad it's funny?  To me, James' answers are worse than that.  I just can't stand them.  Every so often I'll get a laugh out of them, but maybe his ignorance is just getting old.

How about the coincidence that Jello and Randall both came back from long hiatuses on the same day?  Conspiracy alert!  Deniers think that Paul and I sound alike (which we clearly don't) and based on that think we're the same person.  Just think how paranoid they'd be if Jello and Randall were AGW proponents.  But since they're deniers, I'm sure they'll escape the double ID accusations.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: News & Policy
Green Options › Forums › Climate Change › News & Policy › Which skeptic do you find the most and least tolerable?