| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Comments:
<0> You don't find it suspect that 3/5 people they "found" are likely funded by one of the biggest opposition to any evidence of climate change?
<1> Your claims about him didn't hold water.
<1> At worst, he made a few hundred or thousand from a website.
<1> Do you think that's enough to buy him?
<1> Do you honestly believe Exxon owns him?
<1> Of course not.
<1> But you won't retract it.
<0> And that noone thought to mention that the "instututes" they pulled these people from are labs funded by Exxon?
<1> This is why I don't want to argue with you, Asriel.
<1> You're not using common sense.
<0> No, but at the *very* least they have to mention this
<0> Otherwise, their opinions are rightly suspect
<1> You have emotional and populist positions about global warming that override your scientific abilities.
<1> And the worst part of it all is that you are not open to the possibility that you're wrong.
<1> You claimed he received 95k in funding.
<0> huh? We've found 60% of their scientists, from *all* the choice they had in the world
<1> I proved it's wrong.
<1> You didn't retract it.
<0> had their articles published/paid for by people funded by Exxon
<1> You are CLOSED to the realities of this subject.
<0> there's nothing to retract
<1> And that's why I said there's no way to solve this debate without me playing Freud.
<1> And I just don't want to do that right now.
<0> Because there's nothing to retract! You've gone through a load of verbage and not proved anything!
<1> Now, if that's a kink in my logic, fine.
<1> But we both know it isn't.
<0> They. Published. Their. Work. For. People. Funded. By. Exxon.
<1> So stop BS'ing.
<0> I can't see any dispute about that
<0> Now, the fact that some of the money came from them isn't a problem, as long as they mention a potential conflict of interest
<0> but the article cleanly sidesteps that whole thing
<1> I said I'm not continuing this, and I'm not.
<0> as you wish
<1> ty
<0> I think reading it knowing who paid for big chunks of it shows it in rather a different light though :)
<1> Prove he made any money on it at all
<1> Prove he made enough to "buy" his falsification of his position.
<0> That can't ever be done. This is why lobbying is done one step removed
<1> I donated $500 to George Bush's re-election, did I buy him?
<1> Do I have a secret in with Bush?
<1> Is Bush policy actually mine?
<0> You'll never see "A greenpeace scientist" or an "An Exxon scientist"
<1> Has he changed his positions to accomodate me?
<1> The answer to all those questions is no.
<0> it's all "From the laboratory for Oil is Murder" and "Oil saves Jesus Christ research group"
<1> There's no connection, Asriel, and there's no reason to think there'd be a problem if there was a connection, Asriel.
<0> who are, conviently enough, funded by the underlying people
<1> So stop BS'ing.
<1> We both know the situation.
<1> If I get shot down in a debate, I step back, admit it, and reconsider my position.
<1> I don't just throw out more bull****.
<1> I don't know why you're not doing that, but it hardly matters.
<0> you don't think it's odd that "Tech Central Science Foundation" was only setup a year or two before the articles started coming out?
<0> gee, I wonder who might be behind them
<0> (you can play this game with all the "pro climate change" groups as well)
<1> What I think is odd is that you think a line on a graph communicates anything scientific, and that you think on a line on a chart communicates anything about personal integrity, Asriel.
<0> it's standard US lobbying policy
<1> But when you put narcissistic self interest ahead of scientific verifiability, I guess that's what you get.
<0> shouldn't be legal, imo, but there we go. The US system is pretty much beyond saving
<1> A problem endemic to the "global warming" people.
<1> Did you know, Asriel, that one of the original founders of Greenpeace has left the organization, arguing that the new leaders of the global warming movement are merely socialists jockeying to support their end goals of an end to industrialization, capitalism, and individuality?
<1> No, you don't know that.
<1> And you wouldn't care if you did.
<1> Because it's not even about the people, to you.
<1> I seriously can't imagine what it is about.
<1> I know quite a bit about a lot of things, but psychology isn't one of them.
<1> But hey, what do I know, I'm just a Bush hack.
<0> Indeed
<1> Keep telling yourself that.
<0> I have it on a little post it on my monitor
<1> I'm sure it brings some comfort in the big blooming buzzing confusion.
<0> nah, I just read it to remember that not all americans are like you :)
<2> here's a great consensus to come shortly, Democrats winning the next vote for presidency
<1> That's okay, the ones like me are in charge at the moment.
<1> Sure, Floyd.
<0> Sadly. But probably not for much longer
<1> Right after pigs fly.
<1> They've done so well in the last two that the trend is sure looking up.
<2> why not, only 32 percent like Bush
<1> Well, 1) nobody cares
<1> And 2) Bush isn't running in 08
<1> And 3) 08 is two years from now
<2> well, still that's 32 percent pro Repub
<1> Floyd
<1> You want to use math?
<1> And stats?
<1> Okay, try this one on for size.
<1> A one question pop quiz
<3> salam
<1> Name the last Democrat candidate for the presidency who received more than 50.0% of the American vote.
<2> Bill Crinton
<1> And won
<1> You think so?
<1> Look it up
<4> bill clinton *
<2> crinton
<1> You think so too?
<2> I'm asian that's how I say Clinton
<0> Regardless of who wins, you best hope for some sort of change
<0> Your international capital is running at an all time low
<0> in terms of finance and diplomatic crediability
<1> Clinton won 49.2% of the vote in 1996.
<2> speak english for once
<1> 43.0% in 1992.
<2> ok, so what?
<1> So you lost the pop quiz
<1> If you want the deeper point, you'll have to find it yourself
<1> Huh
<2> too many americans voted Independent for there to be a third party this time
<1> Carter only got 50.1%
<1> I was seriously sure he got more
<2> they screwed up now it's payback time
<1> Boy, that's a close one
<1> Who was before him, Johnson?
<2> ok enough history
<1> 1964, I guess
<1> No, you wanted to talk history
<1> Presidential approval polls and such
<1> Ahhhhhh
<1> 61.1%
<1> Johnson
<1> 1962
<1> er
<1> 64
<1> Didn't Gore get more than 50?
<1> No, 48.4
<5> I could not care less
<2> you think all the people that don't support Bush but support Republican are just going to come out in the m***es?
<1> Okay
<1> So what this means is
<1> You have to go back FORTY TWO YEARS to find a Democrat candidate for president who got more than 50.1% of the vote.
<1> And it's trending downward!
<1> But hey, tell me that you won again.
<1> It just hasn't happened yet, sure.
<2> how many people you know from where ever you are (hicksville texas lets say) and they support Repub but not Bush?
<1> Hicksville?
<2> lol
<1> This county has 2.2 million people in it
<2> wow I'm impressed
<1> I don't want to impress you, just shatter the validity of anything you say.
<1> The fact that you're so wrong, so often, makes me feel good about myself.
<1> I'm just fuzzy that way.
<0> meh, I don't doubt they're getting more votes
<0> but you have to ask: Is this actually good for your country?
<2> ok well, just wait for your Repub landslide, which won't be coming anytime soon
<0> certainly doesn't seem that way, so far
<0> currency: tanking. deficit: huge. international relations: all time low
<0> war status: fubar
<1> Hahaha
Return to
#c++
or
Go to some related
logs:
#MissKitten
#linux
linsara
minnesota squirrel hunting
#windows
#windows
#gentoo
#linux
#linuxhelp
#linux
|
|