Four Modern “Scientific” Myths

[siti]

Looks like you're having a meltdown, since you can't come up with a response to one climategate much less all of them. Inconvenient truths have a way of backfiring with the supposed "truth" is BS.



Yes. Two wrongs don't make a right and two myths don't make a Truth.



Where's the money coming from to fund this BS? The UN, world socialist central, and US/Eurpean government bureaucracies. Did you not read what that UN climate change rep said just last week? But hey, I'm a nice guy, and even though you obviously aren't going to lift your little finger to find out, I'll repost it here (SITI obviously missed it as well):
At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said.

Looks like you have the same problem as Siti, no refutation for the climategates, or the evidence that the Sun still controls any climate change as it has for billions of years before us. But for the sake of argument, and abandoning all reason, lets assume it isn't being run by the socialists. So what? They're still cooking the data to make global warming look real. So lets compromise and say the global warming is a conspiracy of unknown origin. I can deal with that if it'll get people to open their eyes. Capitalism will eventually win out anyway, because it's the system that provides freedom AND prosperity.



See above.



They are, but read what I just wrote.



What's your point? I've often charged that socialism is the new religion which uses the same idealogial framework as the revealed religions for overcoming reason--emotion driven blind faith. Heaven, Utopia (aka Heaven on Earth), it's the same old line, disregard that man behind the curtain.

Now who's having a meltdown? Well - I suppose its all the more convincing (or rather confirming to the brain-dead choir you are preaching to) now that you have screamed it in large red letters...I guess it must be true then...

PS - I have posted plenty of links and explanations with real evidence (including some where the denier camps star attractions have condemned themselves out of their own mouths with stunning professorial stupidity...its a pity that you have chosen to focus on a single dead duck argument at the level of understanding below that of the average 5-year-old - i.e. if somebody I trust without reason or question says they are telling lies, then they must be telling lies - rather than refuting any of the actual science or actual evidence that I have presented.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Climategate, climategate, climategate, climategate, climategate, climategate, climategate, climategate, climategate, climategate, climategate, climategate, climategate, climategate, climategate, climategate, climategate,...there - I've repeated it 17 times that MUST qualify as evidence now! Now having proved by repetition that climate change is a socialist conspiracy, I will now go on to prove that evolution is a liberal leftist atheist hoax...Piltdown Man, Piltdown Man, Piltdown Man...

Piltdown man was true 'without doubt' and the cornerstone of human evolution among academia, for far longer than either global warming or global cooling were academically fashionable, Us 'ignorant masses' never fell for any of them, at least give us some credit for a pretty good track record!

 

[siti]

Piltdown man was true 'without doubt' and the cornerstone of human evolution among academia, for far longer than either global warming or global cooling were academically fashionable, Us 'ignorant masses' never fell for any of them, at least give us some credit for a pretty good track record!

OK - I'll give you that one - you never believed in a hoax that was roundly disproven before you were born - well done, very insightful of you. That would indeed be a good track record - if you were on the right track.

This (Piltdown) hoax was debunked 45 years after the 'find' was first reported and about the same time, now about 60 years ago, that we started to realize (by scientific research published in the mid- to late-1950s) that CO2 from fossil fuel combustion was accumulating in the atmosphere and could result in an enhanced greenhouse effect leading to global warming (look up work by Roger Revelle and Charles David Keeling). By 1967 we already had models that predicted a 2deg C rise in surface temp if CO2 levels doubled. (Manabe & Wetherald). Of course we have much more sophisticated and accurate models now, but they weren't a million miles off, were they. So far we have (as I pointed out in one of my more patient responses to you) about a 40% increase in CO2 over pre-industrial levels and the temp. rise is closing in on 1 degree C.

In the early 1970s (45 years ago) there was a public perception that science was predicting global cooling - but if you check the literature of climatology at the time, most scientific papers predicted warming or made no prediction either way and only a small proportion predicted cooling (actually 7 compared to 44 that predicted warming between 1965 and 1979 according to a survey conducted in 2008) - I guess a new ice age just made for better media sensation than a few degrees warmer. Not many people got that a couple of degrees warmer could be a serious issue back then - some still don't get it. But there was never a scientific consensus predicting cooling.

Anyway, the point is, we have known, scientifically, about global warming at least since the late 1950s (although actually Svante Arrhenius had already predicted that increasing CO2 would cause global warming in 1896) and a general consensus among climatologists predicting warming and an anthropogenic contribution has been predominant since the 1980s (over 30 years).

Since then, almost no evidence at all has been discovered to contradict this consensus unless you count a few emails that suggest that 1. some climate scientists carry out statistical operations on their data sets and 2. some climate scientists seem to think that capitalism is a bad idea.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Now who's having a meltdown? Well - I suppose its all the more convincing (or rather confirming to the brain-dead choir you are preaching to) now that you have screamed it in large red letters...I guess it must be true then...

So you're dropping all pretense at objectivity, and sticking with the tried and untrue--IOW, "never give up the con." Good lad.

Don't guess you'd actually care to address what I put up in big, bold and red......Naw, didn't think so.

Think I'll put it up again though, with underlining added so maybe one of the other Truth-deniers here can take or shot at it, or maybe even let it sink in --or may be you could try not ignoring this time. Hope springs eternal, what:

At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

OK - I'll give you that one -

thanks, plenty more where that came from!

This (Piltdown) hoax was debunked 45 years after the 'find' was first reported and about the same time, now about 60 years ago, that we started to realize (by scientific research published in the mid- to late-1950s) that CO2 from fossil fuel combustion was accumulating in the atmosphere and could result in an enhanced greenhouse effect leading to global warming (look up work by Roger Revelle and Charles David Keeling). By 1967 we already had models that predicted a 2deg C rise in surface temp if CO2 levels doubled. (Manabe & Wetherald). Of course we have much more sophisticated and accurate models now, but they weren't a million miles off, were they. So far we have (as I pointed out in one of my more patient responses to you) about a 40% increase in CO2 over pre-industrial levels and the temp. rise is closing in on 1 degree C.

In the early 1970s (45 years ago) there was a public perception that science was predicting global cooling - but if you check the literature of climatology at the time, most scientific papers predicted warming or made no prediction either way and only a small proportion predicted cooling (actually 7 compared to 44 that predicted warming between 1965 and 1979 according to a survey conducted in 2008) - I guess a new ice age just made for better media sensation than a few degrees warmer. Not many people got that a couple of degrees warmer could be a serious issue back then - some still don't get it. But there was never a scientific consensus predicting cooling.

Anyway, the point is, we have known, scientifically, about global warming at least since the late 1950s (although actually Svante Arrhenius had already predicted that increasing CO2 would cause global warming in 1896) and a general consensus among climatologists predicting warming and an anthropogenic contribution has been predominant since the 1980s (over 30 years).

If you check the literature of paranormal investigators, I believe you will find that we knew about ghosts a long time ago! The red flag is where consensus drops off precipitously outside it's niche field.

Climastrology is a relatively recent -purpose-built- field in practice, before then we had atmospheric scientists, meteorologists, chemists, physicists etc who still do not share the same zeal for anthropomorphic weather.

And this belief goes back way further than 60 years, the belief that bad weather is caused by bad people angering nature, is probably the oldest superstition known to mankind. switching scary masks and dances for computer sims does not make this belief any less scientifically illiterate


Like many debates this gets into the semantics of 'global warming' we've all seen polls which manage to eek out a percentage of consensus in the high 90's- where global warming is given a technical definition that even I and most skeptical scientists would agree with. The fact that significant minorities of even climastrologers refused to agree with it, is a red flag. Probably because they knew fine well, that the result would be shown next to a photo of Manhattan underwater.


The amount of extra heat trapped by doubling CO2 would translate to about 1C. The math is relatively straight forward here and so there is pretty broad agreement on either side. Anything else requires those infamous computer simulated positive feedback loops. (all the negative feedback loops that are actually observed in nature are not invited to this party)

Now remember that we started with about 275 pre-industrial and have about 400 now, i.e. after 100 years of exponential growth in fossil fuel use, we are barely half way towards that goal of doubling
while the growth in use has been exponential, the rise in CO2 has been linear. (because it is absorbed at an ever increasing rate)- it's actually very difficult to sustain a rise

in other words, we would require another entire century, continuing the same exponential growth in fossil fuel use, merely to double the concentration from pre-industrial times- We should pray for this as it would mean our global economy is set for an utterly fabulous run! But I fear this is a little optimistic

But let's be extremely generous and grant the same phenomenal fossil fuel driven economic explosion for our kids and grandkids that we enjoyed, and that billions of good people on Earth have not yet had the chance to.

Since the GH effect is a form of insulation, there are some unambiguous consequences to this.

The extra warmth would be disproportionately weighted towards colder regions and times, night time, high latitude, and high altitude (inc troposphere ) - again this is not controversial scientifically

Thus if we were to achieve that doubling by the year 2100, the all time record global low of -135.8F (recorded in 2010) might translate to a balmy -133F instead.

the very LAST place this warming would be transferred to is the opposite; equatorial, daytime, surface and ocean temps.


And the insulation effect diminishes logarithmically, ie. to achieve another 1C rise, we would need to double once again to 1100 ppm. All this to barely reach the point (+2C) at which even the IPCC concedes- must be reached before any hypothetical negatives might start to outweigh all the unambiguous benefits of a greener, healthier biosphere. Because one effect that is NOT trivial, is the vast benefit to plants, crops, especially in dry regions, of more CO2- no computer sims required to simulate photosynthesis, because it is actually a real scientific phenomena, not an ancient superstition

 

[Darkstorn]

So you're dropping all pretense at objectivity, and sticking with the tried and untrue--IOW, "never give up the con." Good lad.

I laughed due to hypocrisy.

You are not even close to being "objective" in any of your assessments. Socialist agenda to destroy capitalism through a faked climate change sure doesn't sound biased AT ALL.

 

[Jose Fly]

Where's the money coming from to fund this BS? The UN, world socialist central, and US/Eurpean government bureaucracies. Did you not read what that UN climate change rep said just last week?

Asking questions is not providing evidence.

But hey, I'm a nice guy, and even though you obviously aren't going to lift your little finger to find out, I'll repost it here (SITI obviously missed it as well):
At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said.

I'm not sure why you keep posting this, as in the thread you originally posted it you have been shredded on the fact that.......Christiana never said that.

Here was your source: U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare

If you read that article, the first thing that should stand out to you is that, again......she never said that.

Looks like you have the same problem as Siti, no refutation for the climategates

What about "climategate"? Simply mentioning it is not actual evidence.

or the evidence that the Sun still controls any climate change as it has for billions of years before us. But for the sake of argument, and abandoning all reason, lets assume it isn't being run by the socialists. So what? They're still cooking the data to make global warming look real. So lets compromise and say the global warming is a conspiracy of unknown origin. I can deal with that if it'll get people to open their eyes. Capitalism will eventually win out anyway, because it's the system that provides freedom AND prosperity.

Again you make more accusations but provide absolutely no evidence to support them. So we're back to where we were before.....either you can provide evidence to back up your accusations or you can't. If you can't, there's no reason to accept any of them as true.

 

[siti]

@Guy Threepwood and @ThePainefulTruth - neither of you have so far posted a single piece of scientific evidence or an even remotely credible argument.

Guy - leaving aside the fact that you are clearly having conceptual difficulties with mathematical concepts such as 'half', 'double', 'exponential' and 'linear' - and the absolutely bizarre suggestion that warming the coldest regions of the earth by 2.8 degrees might be somehow beneficial - I have decided to respond only to this part directly:

We should pray for this as it would mean our global economy is set for an utterly fabulous run! But I fear this is a little optimistic

You're not kidding!

TPT - now that you have mastered large red underlined writing, perhaps you could try posting something of substance. Even if you're right - if your level of reasoning typifies capitalism then it needs to be destroyed - if not to save the world at least to protect the intelligence of discussion forums. BTW - you do know that this kind of 'shouting' behaviour is considered ill-mannered and loutish in internet discussion circles. You are really doing your 'argument' no favours - not that you even have an 'argument'.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I laughed due to hypocrisy.

You are not even close to being "objective" in any of your assessments. Socialist agenda to destroy capitalism through a faked climate change sure doesn't sound biased AT ALL.

You laugh and then do the same thing the other alarmists are doing, ignoring the evidence of all the climategates and the admission from the US global warming official that climate change is not what their about but rather destroying capitalism.

Asking questions is not providing evidence.

I'm not asking questions, you are, that's all you do besides changing the subject from the evidence I keep bringing up and you continue to ignore.

I'm not sure why you keep posting this, as in the thread you originally posted it you have been shredded on the fact that.......Christiana never said that.

Here was your source: U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare

If you read that article, the first thing that should stand out to you is that, again......she never said that.[/quote]

The first paragraph is a fair translation, in context, of the doublespeak in the second:
(Referring at a news conference about the upcoming Paris Climate Change Conference) Christina Figueres said, "This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change (i.e. the replacement of, requiring the destruction of) the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution (i.e. capitalism)."

Addressing this issue at a global warming convention makes the goal of environmental activists not about saving the world from ecological calamity, or at least it's a distant second. We dweebs out here in flyover country weren't supposed to catch on to what the 150 year economic plague they (the socialist elite) want to replace is--or more likely, she was just talking over the heads of their useful idiots in the rent-a-mob.

What about "climategate"? Simply mentioning it is not actual evidence.

So you're claiming to be a global warming activist, but are ignorant about climategate(s).

Strike three.

@Guy Threepwood and @ThePainefulTruth - neither of you have so far posted a single piece of scientific evidence or an even remotely credible argument.

Except all the ones you've ignored. And given the Sun haning out there, the burden of proof is on you anyway. But it looks like that was overcooked (read burnt)..

TPT - now that you have mastered large red underlined writing, perhaps you could try posting something of substance. Even if you're right - if your level of reasoning typifies capitalism then it needs to be destroyed - if not to save the world at least to protect the intelligence of discussion forums. BTW - you do know that this kind of 'shouting' behaviour is considered ill-mannered and loutish in internet discussion circles. You are really doing your 'argument' no favours - not that you even have an 'argument'.

I believe you started it during your meltdown where you posted "climategate" a jillion times as your only response. Yet I'm the one lacking substance???

 

[siti]

Except all the ones you've ignored.

Not at all - go back and check - I have painstakingly answered the points that Guy raised and shown clearly where they fail to make the case he claims. I'm not going to repeat it all again its all there for anyone to read. (I will hint though that perhaps he ought to read up on Dr Roy Spencer's work - Guy claimed earlier that H2O was a more significant driver of climate change than CO2, Spencer's interpretation of negative feedback from increased levels of water vapour in the atmosphere suggests exactly the opposite).

As far as I can see, you have not made a point so far - except your repetition of a long ago debunked conspiracy theory regarding 'manipulation' of climate data and your clearly paranoid suspicion that the politically careless comment of a single official constitutes proof of a global conspiracy among thousands of scientists and government and international bodies to overthrow capitalism. Even if she meant what she said, as I pointed out previously, she was clearly confused about history and her comments could not be taken as a genuine reflection of the intent of the organization she was representing. More's the pity, because actually, overthrowing capitalism would be the surest way to protect our climate anyway.

In the other (more famous) 'climategate' case, the reality is that all that was happening was that the scientists were correcting for known defects in the data collection and measurement process. In fact the famous "trick" to "hide the decline" that the deniers were so focused on was merely talking about replacing calculated data from tree ring analysis that appeared to show a decline in temperature with real, measured data that showed the calculated apparent 'decline' was incorrect and that the temperature (as measured) was actually increasing. Adjusting data for known defects is a routine approach throughout science where 'less than perfect data' are available. Here, for example is Dr Roy Spencer's defense of his own adjustment of satellite data which has been used (including by some in RF) to make the case against anthropogenic warming. (Dr Spencer denies that human activity has a significant impact on global climate - i.e. he's on your side).

One might ask, Why do the satellite data have to be adjusted at all? If we had satellite instruments that (1) had rock-stable calibration, (2) lasted for many decades without any channel failures, and (3) were carried on satellites whose orbits did not change over time, then the satellite data could be processed without adjustment. But none of these things are true. Since 1979 we have had 15 satellites that lasted various lengths of time, having slightly different calibration (requiring intercalibration between satellites), some of which drifted in their calibration, slightly different channel frequencies (and thus weighting functions), and generally on satellite platforms whose orbits drift and thus observe at somewhat different local times of day in different years. All data adjustments required to correct for these changes involve decisions regarding methodology, and different methodologies will lead to somewhat different results. This is the unavoidable situation when dealing with less than perfect data.
​

Right, there, I have answered it even though there was never really a point to be answered. Now can you please stop repeating nonsense and try reading some actual information about the subject.

 

[Darkstorn]

You laugh and then do the same thing the other alarmists are doing, ignoring the evidence of all the climategates and the admission from the US global warming official that climate change is not what their about but rather destroying capitalism.

No. ALL i'm doing is laughing at you. Anything else is just your conspiracy-filled mind doing its thing. But the reason why i have trouble agreeing with your point is that you have trouble providing other evidence for it than *plain lies*.

You're being dishonest. That is the side you are arguing from, because the truth doesn't please you or something. Dishonesty is your only tool here.

/E: I also make the claim that you do not have the faculties or experience to make the call on what counts as "socialism". In your pathetic broken mind you are equating it to communism and communism = bad. But at its root, socialism is a form of government that at least as a principle works from a *humanistic* platform instead of JUST an economic one. The fact that you are so aftraid of THAT leads me to believe that you are American and have trouble with critical thinking. Stop listening to TV / your favourite representative and learn SOME ****ING FACTS YOU.

Your entire post is rhetoric and fear mongering. The problem: This isn't America. We have the means to VERIFY your claims. We don't just HAVE to take them at face value! WE CAN CRITICIZE EVEN WOHOO! We're not as gullible as you. At least i hope so.

/E2: I'll add that IF you are correct and there indeed IS a conspiracy of socialists trying to bring down capitalism with faked global warming, then i'm ALL for it. Capitalism by its principle EXPLOITS. Socialism at least tries to think of the individual human first. And no, socialism isn't communism. For example, it lacks the "collectivity" element altogether. PEOPLE are individuals, but their government should be all for equal opportunity. Capitalism doesn't believe in equal opportunity. I would HAPPILY give up capitalism.

So you're claiming to be a global warming activist, but are ignorant about climategate(s).

Strike three.

Wow. Do you actually consider this an argument? Climategate is RHETORIC. Not an argument. Are you really this stupid?

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm not asking questions, you are, that's all you do besides changing the subject from the evidence I keep bringing up and you continue to ignore.

You've not posted any evidence at all.

The first paragraph is a fair translation

That you have to characterize it as a "translation" shows exactly what I said......she never said that.

So you're claiming to be a global warming activist, but are ignorant about climategate(s).

I'm quite familiar with it. But you merely saying the word "climategate" is just that.....you saying "climategate" and apparently thinking that constitutes "providing evidence". Like I said, either you can provide evidence of this conspiracy to implement this vague "agenda" or you can't. So far, it looks like you can't.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

As far as I can see, you have not made a point so far - except your repetition of a long ago debunked conspiracy theory regarding 'manipulation' of climate data and your clearly paranoid suspicion that the politically careless comment of a single official constitutes proof of a global conspiracy among thousands of scientists and government and international bodies to overthrow capitalism.

"Long ago debunked"? Typical leftist response, "He's nuts, It's wrong, 'nuff said."

Even if she meant what she said

So now you're doing long distance psychoanalysis and lie detecting--and, I presume, think the UN is God's righteous wealth transfer gift to the planet.

as I pointed out previously, she was clearly confused about history

Which is it, she didn't mean what she said (she lied) or she was confused.

and her comments could not be taken as a genuine reflection of the intent of the organization she was representing. More's the pity, because actually, overthrowing capitalism would be the surest way to protect our climate anyway.

So the UN just stood by and let the wacko rave on? C'mon, you're not connecting the dots, you just scribbling all over the page...with your eyes closed.

In the other (more famous) 'climategate' case, the reality is that all that was happening was that the scientists were correcting for known defects in the data

Yeah, "known", because they didn't fit the necessary (for global warming) outcome. Read the things, they were doing it to keep the "corrections" from going public. Their cred was shot.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

No. ALL i'm doing is laughing at you. Anything else is just your conspiracy-filled mind doing its thing. But the reason why i have trouble agreeing with your point is that you have trouble providing other evidence for it than *plain lies*.

You're being dishonest. That is the side you are arguing from, because the truth doesn't please you or something. Dishonesty is your only tool here.

/E: I also make the claim that you do not have the faculties or experience to make the call on what counts as "socialism". In your pathetic broken mind you are equating it to communism and communism = bad. But at its root, socialism is a form of government that at least as a principle works from a *humanistic* platform instead of JUST an economic one. The fact that you are so aftraid of THAT leads me to believe that you are American and have trouble with critical thinking. Stop listening to TV / your favourite representative and learn SOME ****ING FACTS YOU.

Your entire post is rhetoric and fear mongering. The problem: This isn't America. We have the means to VERIFY your claims. We don't just HAVE to take them at face value! WE CAN CRITICIZE EVEN WOHOO! We're not as gullible as you. At least i hope so.

/E2: I'll add that IF you are correct and there indeed IS a conspiracy of socialists trying to bring down capitalism with faked global warming, then i'm ALL for it. Capitalism by its principle EXPLOITS. Socialism at least tries to think of the individual human first. And no, socialism isn't communism. For example, it lacks the "collectivity" element altogether. PEOPLE are individuals, but their government should be all for equal opportunity. Capitalism doesn't believe in equal opportunity. I would HAPPILY give up capitalism.



Wow. Do you actually consider this an argument? Climategate is RHETORIC. Not an argument. Are you really this stupid?

You've not posted any evidence at all.



That you have to characterize it as a "translation" shows exactly what I said......she never said that.



I'm quite familiar with it. But you merely saying the word "climategate" is just that.....you saying "climategate" and apparently thinking that constitutes "providing evidence". Like I said, either you can provide evidence of this conspiracy to implement this vague "agenda" or you can't. So far, it looks like you can't.

Straight out of the Democrat playbook, accuse the accuser of what you're doing, deny, deny, deny, deny; but above all, never give up the con.

 

[Darkstorn]

I'm not American, your "democrat" comment is just laughable. The world, and the internet by extension is NOT A TWO PARTY STATE. This place is not for your petty republicans vs democrat divide. Your issue doesn't exist anywhere except your mind.

I bet next you'll call us liberals or something. You are NOT arguing from an intellectual high ground. More like you're trying to drive whatever intelligence left in this thread INTO THE GROUND so there would be room for your ridiculous rant about democrats.

You DO NOT even know what socialism means, bub. You ARE NOT going to defeat logical arguments with rhetoric. THIS IS NOT AMERICA.

Your stupidity knows no bounds.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I'm not American, your "democrat" comment is just laughable. The world, and the internet by extension is NOT A TWO PARTY STATE. This place is not for your petty republicans vs democrat divide. Your issue doesn't exist anywhere except your mind.

I bet next you'll call us liberals or something. You are NOT arguing from an intellectual high ground. More like you're trying to drive whatever intelligence left in this thread INTO THE GROUND so there would be room for your ridiculous rant about democrats.

You DO NOT even know what socialism means, bub. You ARE NOT going to defeat logical arguments with rhetoric. THIS IS NOT AMERICA.

Your stupidity knows no bounds.

Democrats=socialists=liberals=leftists=double standard elites=antidisestablishmentarians.

Socialism=pro-big government, ever-growing tax and spend, wealth redistribution, anti-capitalism, subversion of individual liberty to bureaucratic, nationalized health-care, global warming alarmists, political correctness fanatics, fact-dodgers, name callers, (and the real ironic one) racists, NAZI (national socialists), and last but far from least, communists. Guess that about covers it. And given your tirade, you'd fit right in with the American left.

 

[Darkstorn]

Democrats=socialists=liberals=leftists=double standard elites=antidisestablishmentarians.

THAT is not true. You have no idea of what socialism is.

Socialism=pro-big government, ever-growing tax and spend, wealth redistribution, anti-capitalism, subversion of individual liberty to bureaucratic, nationalized health-care, global warming alarmists, political correctness fanatics, fact-dodgers, name callers, (and the real ironic one) racists, NAZI (national socialists), and last but far from least, communists. Guess that about covers it.

So, in English: You are afraid and angry, we get it. The fact that you had to use the Nazi card really shows how firm the ground you are standing on truly is. I'll give you a hint: "Socialist" can also be used as a proper noun. I.E just because someone says "socialist" doesn't necessarily mean socialist.

Socialism is humanism at its core, and has NOTHING to do with politics in itself. Being afraid of humanism is laughable.

And given your tirade, you'd fit right in with the American left.

That only shows your understanding of the world. The American left is not left. Not even close. Your democrats: Moderate centrists at best. They're still pro capitalism. Granted, to a fascist even a centrist might seem to be coming from the left. I think you were trying to make a point that even the nazis are from your perspective from the left because of the way you just dumped everything together.

/E: ALL modern industrialized countries, regardless of them being socialist, have a universal healthcare system. Except America. In fact, if we compare it with the top 10 overall in healthcare, both from the standpoint of quality and cost, it would look like this: The US healthcare costs the most, and doesn't even get to the top 10 in terms of quality of healthcare. It's actually somewhere around 35th if i remember correctly. So, you have the belief that universal health care costs more and results in bigger taxes, when it could just as well be paid by lowering military expenditures etc, and is in fact, in the actual real world, overall, CHEAPER than your broken system. People who are afraid of universal health care are ignorant and believe in others' rhetoric.

/E2: Everything important has already been said many times, and you have been proven a mindless fanatic in the eyes of your peers. There is no need for anyone to continue this, you have already lost the argument due to the weakness of your points, and your reliance on rhetoric. You have NOT been able to successfully argue your own points. You have not been able to defend yourself adequately. You have lost, completely. However: that doesn't mean i will quit this thread. I just want you to understand that even you are no longer arguing about the original point of this thread, YOU have derailed and reduced it into a democrats vs republicans rant.

/E3: Just so i get to say this one more time: You ACTUALLY believe that there's a conspiracy to bring down capitalism through a fake global warming, enacted by them Scary Socialists. ANYONE with any ability at critical thinking would realize that it's just one of those "Jet fuel can't melt steel" kind of moronic things to say.

 

[Jose Fly]

Straight out of the Democrat playbook, accuse the accuser of what you're doing, deny, deny, deny, deny; but above all, never give up the con.

Again, either you can provide evidence or you can't. So far, it looks like you can't.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

THAT is not true. You have no idea of what socialism is.



So, in English: You are afraid and angry, we get it. The fact that you had to use the Nazi card really shows how firm the ground you are standing on truly is. I'll give you a hint: "Socialist" can also be used as a proper noun. I.E just because someone says "socialist" doesn't necessarily mean socialist.

Socialism is humanism at its core, and has NOTHING to do with politics in itself. Being afraid of humanism is laughable.



That only shows your understanding of the world. The American left is not left. Not even close. Your democrats: Moderate centrists at best. They're still pro capitalism. Granted, to a fascist even a centrist might seem to be coming from the left. I think you were trying to make a point that even the nazis are from your perspective from the left because of the way you just dumped everything together.

Socialism it big centrist government. It doesn't matter who pulls he levers--bureaucrats, dictators or oligarchs. The telltale sign of a socialist government is a legal double-standard, the "we must pardon the President (or whoever) in order to protect the office of the President", when pardoning him effects the corruption for the pardoned and all who follow. Another good example is Congress writing laws which don't apply to themselves.

/E: ALL modern industrialized countries, regardless of them being socialist, have a universal healthcare system.

But that socialist which makes them socialist countries. Government healthcare is an even bigger intrusion into personal liberty than taxes. It's hands over the power of life and death decisions to bureaucrats and demagogic politicians who all are covered with a different plan. And the US has Medicare which is as socialist as Social Security.

Except America. In fact, if we compare it with the top 10 overall in healthcare, both from the standpoint of quality and cost, it would look like this: The US healthcare costs the most, and doesn't even get to the top 10 in terms of quality of healthcare. It's actually somewhere around 35th if i remember correctly. So, you have the belief that universal health care costs more and results in bigger taxes, when it could just as well be paid by lowering military expenditures etc, and is in fact, in the actual real world, overall, CHEAPER than your broken system. People who are afraid of universal health care are ignorant and believe in others' rhetoric.

Speaking of rhetoric, you're a victim of the liberal media spin for sure, believing what you just wrote. Nowhere is that more evident than Cuba, for anyone who cares to look. And if you look closely enough at Europe's or Canada's systems, you'll find waiting lists far exceed anything in the US. And while I don't know about costs, the quality of US health care is second to none.

/E2: Everything important has already been said many times, and you have been proven a mindless fanatic in the eyes of your peers. There is no need for anyone to continue this, you have already lost the argument due to the weakness of your points, and your reliance on rhetoric. You have NOT been able to successfully argue your own points. You have not been able to defend yourself adequately. You have lost, completely. However: that doesn't mean i will quit this thread. I just want you to understand that even you are no longer arguing about the original point of this thread, YOU have derailed and reduced it into a democrats vs republicans rant.

A continuation of the pure declarations you started with.

/E3: Just so i get to say this one more time: You ACTUALLY believe that there's a conspiracy to bring down capitalism through a fake global warming, enacted by them Scary Socialists. ANYONE with any ability at critical thinking would realize that it's just one of those "Jet fuel can't melt steel" kind of moronic things to say.

Why don't you take a crack at explaining Mz. Figueres' comments to me. A couple of others have tried and their tap dances failed miserably. Socialism is antithetical to capitalism by definition. And BTW, your ad hominem name calling and attempts at intimidation only make you and your case look bad....hmmm, so maybe it's a good thing.

Again, either you can provide evidence or you can't. So far, it looks like you can't.

There you go again, accusing the accuser of what you're doing.

 

[Darkstorn]

Socialism it big centrist government. It doesn't matter who pulls he levers--bureaucrats, dictators or oligarchs. The telltale sign of a socialist government is a legal double-standard, the "we must pardon the President (or whoever) in order to protect the office of the President", when pardoning him effects the corruption for the pardoned and all who follow. Another good example is Congress writing laws which don't apply to themselves.

That's not socialism. That's your idea of socialism. There's a big difference. You are biased and your view is entirely based upon your two-party system. Democrats are not socialist, they are not even from the left.

But that socialist which makes them socialist countries. Government healthcare is an even bigger intrusion into personal liberty than taxes. It's hands over the power of life and death decisions to bureaucrats and demagogic politicians who all are covered with a different plan. And the US has Medicare which is as socialist as Social Security.

So, Japan is a socialist country? Germany too? UK as well?

You are making even less sense when you are trying to argue the health care issue! Your medicare has NOTHING to do with universal health care. It's a compromise and an attempt to make it closer to one, but it's still FAR off. The fact that you don't even understand THIS is... Pathetic.

You are afraid of people receiving free healthcare. THAT is laughable.

Speaking of rhetoric, you're a victim of the liberal media spin for sure, believing what you just wrote. Nowhere is that more evident than Cuba, for anyone who cares to look. And if you look closely enough at Europe's or Canada's systems, you'll find waiting lists far exceed anything in the US. And while I don't know about costs, the quality of US health care is second to none.

First: I'm not like you. You accuse me of being a victim of "the liberal media"(sounds like another conspiracy to me) while showing your bias! Second: I could just as well tell you that you're a victim of right-wing propaganda. I try to have multiple sources. You can't even admit to yourself the bare necessities of critical thinking: You need both viewpoints. You also admit you don't know anything about health care costs, yet you imagine it's "knowledge" that the US health care is second to none. You can't know that without knowing the costs. You admit your ignorance.

U.S. Health Care from a Global Perspective

U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries

U.S. Health-Care System Ranks as One of the Least-Efficient

A group that bashes U.S. health care every year has a new zinger

Think again, bub. You are wrong. No way around it. The US health care is one of the worst out of all industrial countries, both according to quality AND cost of service. A few of those links also confirm that the waiting lists are just about equal between all industrialized countries and you are NOT any better off. So there goes another one of your so-called points you ripped out your ***. The US has one of the lowest life expectancy, worst infant mortality, most chronic conditions, and most obesity per capita. By ALL counts, the US health care is one of the least efficient systems on the PLANET.

And yes i'm fully prepared for you to call me out on using a link with "nbc" in it. That'll surely fuel your idea of a socialist conspiracy.

A continuation of the pure declarations you started with.

I did declare those things. And there's enough evidence for me to be considered right in the eyes of our peers, and you wrong. You are using only rhetoric and fear-mongering. When that doesn't work, you start using big red letters. That's not arguing, that's being a showboat idiot.

Why don't you take a crack at explaining Mz. Figueres' comments to me. A couple of others have tried and their tap dances failed miserably. Socialism is antithetical to capitalism by definition. And BTW, your ad hominem name calling and attempts at intimidation only make you and your case look bad....hmmm, so maybe it's a good thing.

I'll let others be the judge of whether or not i have made my case look bad, compared to yours.

And i have no reason to explain anyone else's comments except my own. You can't even do that to your own points.

There you go again, accusing the accuser of what you're doing.

You saying "climategate" or another idiot saying "climategate" is not evidence. Senses and perceptions are NOT compelling evidence. So, either you will provide said evidence or you will not.

YOU started the thread, YOU made claims. It is ON YOU to prove your issue's existence. YOU HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO.

I'm going to call you a dumdum again.

This all seems like you're getting ALL your information from one-sided publications. Almost as if you refuse to read it if they don't admit their republican bias... Critical thinking would involve reading sources from other places too. You can't just take a biased subjective source and somehow imagine that it's proof without a doubt. Further more, you keep using strawmen, lies and misquoted text to try and prove your point. That kind of behaviour is frowned upon in an argument: YOU get to put words into others' mouths, change the quotes you cite and yet you demand MUCH more strict rules of those who are refuting you: Not even compelling evidence trumps misquoted text in your mind.

/E: Anyway, i think this thread is over. You have already forgotten your original point and are now trying to save your manliness by proving the supremacy of capitalism. Good luck with that. Maybe you need to calm down and detach the issue from your personal problems with reality. ANYONE who accuses others of being a liberal has the following problem: That kind of a person is a sad, sad American who thinks the rest of the world works with your retarded "you're either republican, or you're a FILTHY SOCIALIST LIBERAL DEMOCRAT" divide. That is pathetic. You ACTUALLY think the world is black and white.

/E2: Let's end this post with a funny: You dumped nazis into socialists and claimed that they're also left-wing. What the hell are you if you actually think nazis are socialist? KKK member?