Possible Conspiracy To Falsify Temperature Data Uncovered

[OnePimpTiger]

I don't think you value the truth. The vast majority of Americans don't. The vast majority of Americans think more along the lines of, "I've got my worldview just how I want it, and I don't care if it's realistic or not because it makes me feel happy and superior." And when people like you use the word truth, I find that more often than not, you're really talking about worldview-enforcing dogma. Prove otherwise, if you can.

I'm sorry you drank the Koolaid and now it's starting to look like it has been at least a little tainted. Instead of projecting and attacking others when your worldview is challenged, why not look into it more, do a little research, and use it as a learning opportunity?

And I don't have to prove anything. I have said from day one that I don't know if "global warming" is occurring or not or, if it is, if it is man made...I leave that up to science and true science has yet to come to a consensus. You are the one making the claim otherwise, so prove it if you can. But I guess by your standard you already have...you know every thing about me, even things I don't know about me, and you said it was so, so it must be. What's it like to be omniscient?

Yeah, that's what you say about evolution and Big Bang cosmology.

Actually, no it's not...prove it, if you can. Talk about not valuing truth because it doesn't fit your world view...

[gatorboymike]

And I don't have to prove anything. I have said from day one that I don't know if "global warming" is occurring or not or, if it is, if it is man made...I leave that up to science and true science has yet to come to a consensus. You are the one making the claim otherwise, so prove it if you can.

I don't take any position on global warming. It's not that people deny global warming that I object to, it's the basis upon which they deny it. Specifically, right-wing conservative Christians' dogmatic, unthinking, knee-jerk denial of it because it conflicts with their ultra-capitalist and Biblical-apocalyptic beliefs. And before you say anything, yes, I also object to left-wing liberal enviro-nuts' dogmatic, unthinking, knee-jerk acceptance of it because it supports their anti-capitalist hippie "let's all go frolic in the woods with the deer and the butterflies" beliefs. Acceptance or non-acceptance of a scientific theory should depend on how well it is supported. And, given that this issue is already highly politicized and that I'm not an insider on it, I don't know who's an authority and who's trying to belch out false data to support their position. And so we get back to the point of the original post: I think your source is an untrustworthy, raving bastion of reactionary pablum, and it seems to me like what you are doing is looking for anything that seems to support what you want to be true, and assuming this must axiomatically make it true.

But I guess by your standard you already have...you know every thing about me, even things I don't know about me, and you said it was so, so it must be. What's it like to be omniscient?

Awful. I keep picking up half-remembered song choruses and people's lu™™™™l thoughts. In fact...blech, you should be ashamed for thinking that.

Actually, no it's not...prove it, if you can. Talk about not valuing truth because it doesn't fit your world view...

Prove what? That you try to politicize evolution and Big Bang cosmology? I think the whole "academic freedom" thing is evidence of that.

[ensbergcollector]

just for the record, global warming doesn't have anything to do with christianity. I have no horse in the race, and whatever horse I might have, has nothing to do with my faith.

[OnePimpTiger]

I don't take any position on global warming. It's not that people deny global warming that I object to, it's the basis upon which they deny it. Specifically, right-wing conservative Christians' dogmatic, unthinking, knee-jerk denial of it because it conflicts with their ultra-capitalist and Biblical-apocalyptic beliefs. And before you say anything, yes, I also object to left-wing liberal enviro-nuts' dogmatic, unthinking, knee-jerk acceptance of it because it supports their anti-capitalist hippie "let's all go frolic in the woods with the deer and the butterflies" beliefs. Acceptance or non-acceptance of a scientific theory should depend on how well it is supported. And, given that this issue is already highly politicized and that I'm not an insider on it, I don't know who's an authority and who's trying to belch out false data to support their position. And so we get back to the point of the original post: I think your source is an untrustworthy, raving bastion of reactionary pablum, and it seems to me like what you are doing is looking for anything that seems to support what you want to be true, and assuming this must axiomatically make it true.

I don't take any position on global warming either. My position is that far too many people knowingly or unknowingly buy into exactly the same thing you are against...bad science. They have made up their mind using whatever reasons and now choose to block out any conflicting information, which is actually quite abundant. So I present the opposing viewpoint. It may come off like I don't believe in global warming, but that's because so many sheep buy into it that I'm always having to present information from the other side just to try to get them to consider there may be an alternative to the world dying in a ball of fire via global warming. Trying to get people to consider an alternate view is not necessarily supporting that view.

And ok, you don't trust Newsbusters. Surely by now you've seen the stories on every other news outlet that's not in Al Gore's pocket...including the Yahoo article posted in this very thread.

Awful. I keep picking up half-remembered song choruses and people's lu™™™™l thoughts. In fact...blech, you should be ashamed for thinking that.

Oh you've shown time and time again that you think you know more about me than I know about myself...you are an expert an all Christians, even in aspects that don't relate in any way to Christianity, remember?

Prove what? That you try to politicize evolution and Big Bang cosmology? I think the whole "academic freedom" thing is evidence of that.

I rarely have even discussed evolution or the Big Bang theory, how do I try to politicize them? You'll have to give me a little more than a vague statement about "academic freedom"...not even sure what you mean by that.

[Williy@anker]

Wow I never knew that the only people who Don't believe in Global Warming are Hardcore christians. Guess we all learn something new everyday.
Thank you for letting me in on that.

[gatorboymike]

I don't take any position on global warming either. My position is that far too many people knowingly or unknowingly buy into exactly the same thing you are against...bad science. They have made up their mind using whatever reasons and now choose to block out any conflicting information, which is actually quite abundant. So I present the opposing viewpoint. It may come off like I don't believe in global warming, but that's because so many sheep buy into it that I'm always having to present information from the other side just to try to get them to consider there may be an alternative to the world dying in a ball of fire via global warming. Trying to get people to consider an alternate view is not necessarily supporting that view.

Fair enough, I'll give you that one.

And ok, you don't trust Newsbusters. Surely by now you've seen the stories on every other news outlet that's not in Al Gore's pocket...including the Yahoo article posted in this very thread.

I have seen those, but I'm not really interested in getting into the global warming debate. My sanity is taxed enough. And I don't listen to Al Gore, either. I don't think he's any more trustworthy than Newsbusters because both of them are quite obviously only concerned with propping up the corpse of an untenable ideology.

Oh you've shown time and time again that you think you know more about me than I know about myself...you are an expert an all Christians, even in aspects that don't relate in any way to Christianity, remember?

Smile when you say that, Mr. Galt.

I rarely have even discussed evolution or the Big Bang theory, how do I try to politicize them? You'll have to give me a little more than a vague statement about "academic freedom"...not even sure what you mean by that.

That would be the royal "you," as in, conservative Christians try to politicize them. And for reference, "academic freedom" is the creationist machine's latest attempt at forcing Biblical creationism into public science classrooms. It's both interesting and disgusting to observe how their tactics have evolved (word choice deliberate).

Ban teaching evolution! = FAIL (Epperson v. Arkansas, 1968)
OK, teach both evolution and creationism = FAIL (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 1982)
What if we call it creation "science"? = FAIL (Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987)
Oh yeah? Well, evolution is a religion too! = FAIL (Peloza v. Capistrano School District, 1994)
Intelligent design = FAIL (Kitzmiller et al v. Dover, 2005)
Academic freedom = soon to be FAIL

[Aikman_TheGreat]

Eric Cartman (South Park) is to Jewish people, as is Gatorboymike is to Christians.

[WantToTrade]

Eric Cartman (South Park) is to Jewish people, as is Gatorboymike is to Christians.

Should be
Gatorboymike is to Christians as is Bobby Fischer is to Jewish People. I think this is a closer resemblence.




Just messing around

[gatorboymike]

Yes, and you guys are to Christianity what these guys are to Islam:

[OnePimpTiger]

I have seen those, but I'm not really interested in getting into the global warming debate. My sanity is taxed enough. And I don't listen to Al Gore, either. I don't think he's any more trustworthy than Newsbusters because both of them are quite obviously only concerned with propping up the corpse of an untenable ideology.

Fair enough...it is quite maddening at times. It really has become a religion in the faith people put into it and the zeal with which they defend it...and often even the unwillingness to consider there may be an alternative (I'm sure you'll love that thought).

That would be the royal "you," as in, conservative Christians try to politicize them.

See, that's where you run afoul. Despite your strongly held belief, not all conservative Christians are the same. I don't think evolution should be taken out of school curriculums and, while I wouldn't mind if Creationism was taught (what's wrong with presenting more than one view?), I don't think the school is where it should be taught. Evolution is a scientific theory, Creationsim is a religious ideal...they're obviously not mutually exclusive, but they're not the same type of concept either.