How can liberals believe that...

[RetiredGySgt]

How can liberals believe that...they know what the temperature was 33000 years ago?

You are confusing liberals with Scientists

You are lying again. Most "scientists" who work for the gov are liberals. I knew many. Especially in the national weather service where you either swallowed the global warming hype or found another job.

Possibly they bought it because they understand the scientific method well enough to trust the overwhelming evidence of climate change, what is causing it and what limited options we have to limit its impact..

lol 33000 thousand years ago. Even Fred Flintstone can't help your fantasy.

Actually, by going to Antarctica and the North Pole and taking ice core samples, they have a pretty good idea what the world was like back then as far as climate goes.

And here I thought LOCAL temps and weather did not determine world wide temps and weather.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'd personally be more interested in hearing what you think this "disconnect" is. Is it REALLY between leftist (sorry, but there IS a difference between liberals and people on the left) views and our perceptions of them, or is it between what they PRESENT their views as and our perceptions?

No offense, and I'm not going to automatically include you in this, but the fact is that a lot of people on the left lie, both to others and themselves, about what they're really supporting.

It's difficult to say too much in response here without being more specific, but I think it might be meaningful that you included the idea that people are lying to themselves. I think there's a pretty important distinction between knowingly telling lies and being deluded (assuming you don't mind my characterizing people lying to themselves as delusional). The first is acting in bad faith, in an attempt to gain power, manipulate, or to achieve some end, presumably. The latter really just reduces to saying that the person is wrong, even if it adds the connotation of being inexcusably wrong.

And I think the distinction actually comes pretty close to the disconnect I had in mind. You don't just think that leftists are wrong in some pedestrian sense, you seem to think they are dishonestly, immorally wrong. Whether because they are arguing in bad faith or are just somehow morally culpable in an especially strong sense. But that's not my experience of people on the left at all. My experience is that they (and myself, to be sure) may have all the same kinds of faults that people invariably do, but we tend to be pretty earnest about our beliefs and values.*

In fact, I think most people, not just leftists, are usually pretty earnest in their beliefs, if not always in their conversations. When I read some more leftist-dominated forums, I see that many of them also view people on the right not just as wrong, but either dishonest or delusional. The disconnect -- in part -- is that we can't talk to each other because we seem to share so little common ground that honest disagreement appears to be bad faith from the very start. It doesn't help that the topics we disagree about are enormously important, from abortion to immigration to racial and gender equality. There's a moral component that I think helps explain why we take someone being wrong (in our opinion) to mean being immoral. I think when you say that people are lying, even to themselves, you're capturing something of that. Liberals aren't just wrong in your opinion, they are immoral, and I think you might be working backwards a bit from there to conclude that they are lying. Meanwhile, leftists feel much the same (cf. "deplorables").

One of my interests is in trying to have conversations with people who I disagree with so strongly as to be tempted to immediately dismiss them as immoral in this sense. And I mean, I'm not saying I don't think that some of the posters in this forum are immoral; I'm sure I do. We have real differences. But the above may explain my interest in this thread.

Also: I'm going to watch a movie with my wife in a bit. I'll be keeping an eye on this thread but you'll have to excuse me if I let it develop slowly over the weekend and through next week

* I'm not including politicians...

I include the idea that people are lying to themselves because not all leftists are deliberately spreading misinformation to others. There certainly are quite a few who do so, but I'm pretty sure most everyday people on the left are convincing themselves to believe misinformation, and then spreading it in all earnestness. And for the record, I'm not saying there isn't a certain amount of both activities on the right, given that there's less and less critical thinking happening in society these days.

I think there's a difference between being wrong and lying to yourself. For example, wrong is believing that guns are inherently bad things. Lying to yourself is subsequently getting all your news and information on the subject of guns and the Second Amendent from Vox.com and other such sources which will all agree with and reinforce that viewpoint. I don't think you're lying to me when you tell me how much better off society would be with fewer guns and less gun ownership; I think you genuinely believe that. But you ARE wrong, and you are wrong because you have convinced yourself with misinformation.

I should also point out that there's a large difference between what I think of leftists in general, and what I think of leftists on this board. As a general rule, people who are focused and involved enough in politics to hang out on a message board like this tend to go beyond the "earnestly misinformed" stage to full-on deluded and/or lying through their damned teeth. Everyday leftists very often have never truly encountered opposing viewpoints and opposing evidence; message board leftists most certainly have, and generally are making a visible effort to ignore it or be obtuse about it.

And I don't think everyday leftists are immoral, per se. I think what they are espousing often is, but I'm actually pretty sure they don't realize that. Again, message board leftists are a different matter.

 

[francoHFW]

Several of the libs aren't even real people in some cases I think. They repeat each other so often I think it's just a few apparatchiks and several computers programmed to paste the same bullshit all day. There are a handful of decent libs like OldLady and some other people that are either republicrat operatives trying to look as stupid as possible or they really are retards. You'll figure out who they are. Then there's Jake Fake and his 4 socks.

1. Liberals can not think. They've proven that. If you pay any attention to MSNBC, that's what they believe. You can't provide enough evidence to convince them they're wrong. We are talking about people who belong in a political party that used to have as their "Lion in the Senate" a...(ahem....) "man" who drove off a bridge one night into a lake. Swam out. Walked home and went to bed. Later that next day after his car had been dragged out of the water and the dead body of Mary Jo Kopechne was found inside, Ted Kennedy phoned his lawyer, and then they notified police that the piece of shit drove off a bridge and left a woman for dead, assuming she was alive in the first place.

That's the sort of "men" who lead "people" like liberals and that's why you won't find more than a few that even expose themselves to arguments that might change their programming.

I'm a mean nasty troll also BTW...

Enjoy your experience here.


.

So how is lock her up and that criminal foundation and Obama and Lerner and the FBI going? Funny how law enforcement and journalists can't find any evidence, just b******* propaganda. No retractions of course. Every respected media around the world agrees the GOP and its propaganda machine are totally full of s***...

 

[rightwinger]

Trump said she gave credible testimony until he turned Trump and reversed himself.
Many women have repressed sexual attacks for decades. Look at Bill Cosby or men molested by priests
They remember the attacks vividly but not some of the details of the surroundings

But DiFi had to stretch it out another 7 weeks?
You leftist are good for nothing but amusement and ridicule.
Here's a little tip...the rest of America sees right through your bullshit.

Why were Republicans willing to ignore potential sexual assault charges in order to rush a vote?
It is a lifetime appointment, why not get the facts first?

As you have been told a thousand times, there are no witnesses and no proof. & investigations and nothing! NOTHING troll.

Kavanaugh was not convicted......he was investigated by a Senate Committee

You claim there was no evidence. An eyewitness is evidence. Any victim of sexual assault can go into a police station and make a complaint. Police will investigate based on a complaint...That is what the Senate did...investigate

Why did Republicans want to rush a decision BEFORE the complaint had been investigated?

Why? Because it was not a legitimate complaint. If it were it would have been brought up at the start of the hearings and handled then NOT days before the vote in an effort to derail the vote. Further after HEARING the supposed evidence it is CLEAR it was a made up complaint in an effort to derail the vote. Ford openly lied UNDER OATH at least 3 times, no reason to believe any of the rest of her testimony.

Again ....let’s go back to the original claim
It was that there was NO EVIDENCE.
It has been repeatedly shown that there was enough evidence to warrant an investigation

It was Kavenaugh who lied under oath about his drinking.......a critical aspect of the investigation.

 

[rightwinger]

How can liberals believe that...they know what the temperature was 33000 years ago?

You are confusing liberals with Scientists

You are lying again. Most "scientists" who work for the gov are liberals. I knew many. Especially in the national weather service where you either swallowed the global warming hype or found another job.

Possibly they bought it because they understand the scientific method well enough to trust the overwhelming evidence of climate change, what is causing it and what limited options we have to limit its impact..

lol 33000 thousand years ago. Even Fred Flintstone can't help your fantasy.

Actually, by going to Antarctica and the North Pole and taking ice core samples, they have a pretty good idea what the world was like back then as far as climate goes.

And here I thought LOCAL temps and weather did not determine world wide temps and weather.

Are you really that clueless?

How would local temperatures and weather be used to show temperatures from thousands of years ago?

 

[rightwinger]

Trump said she gave credible testimony until he turned Trump and reversed himself.
Many women have repressed sexual attacks for decades. Look at Bill Cosby or men molested by priests
They remember the attacks vividly but not some of the details of the surroundings

But DiFi had to stretch it out another 7 weeks?
You leftist are good for nothing but amusement and ridicule.
Here's a little tip...the rest of America sees right through your bullshit.

Why were Republicans willing to ignore potential sexual assault charges in order to rush a vote?
It is a lifetime appointment, why not get the facts first?

As you have been told a thousand times, there are no witnesses and no proof. & investigations and nothing! NOTHING troll.

Kavanaugh was not convicted......he was investigated by a Senate Committee

You claim there was no evidence. An eyewitness is evidence. Any victim of sexual assault can go into a police station and make a complaint. Police will investigate based on a complaint...That is what the Senate did...investigate

Why did Republicans want to rush a decision BEFORE the complaint had been investigated?

You lost....get the fuck over it.

Smelly...
Try to keep up with the thread

 

[Cecilie1200]

Sorry, but Vox.com doesn't constitute evidence

I'm sure there's a long conversation to be had about epistemology, but in any case Vox isn't the source for the interesting data in the article, they are merely a convenient aggregator for it. I'm always willing to entertain objections to various research, data, methods, or whatever else, but they'd have to be more specific than just "I won't accept any link to Vox," especially when all of the relevant information in the article is links to other sources.

Also, to be clear, reducing the number of guns is a solution to gun-related violence, not to violence in general. But since gun-violence is orders of magnitude more deadly than other forms of violence, and because guns have little social value, it seems like a no-brainer to me.

Anyway, I said I would attempt to explain my views, I didn't expect to persuade anyone of them, which is obviously a more difficult task.

Sorry, but I don't trust Vox, and I don't trust anything they claim to "collect" from other sources, and I don't trust any source they would trust.

I do not, in fact, have to be any more specific than "I don't accept links to people known for lying to advance their agenda".

And you're continuing to validate my perception. Was that your intention?

 

[jasonnfree]

The left only cares about politics...they don't care about women, blacks, gays, men, whites, Asians or anyone. If you oppose them you must be defamed and destroyed. And they are allowed to do that with no evidence....aka they just don't care.......the end ALWAYS justifies the means for them.

anytime they bring up 4th amendment issues or any due process..just laugh in their face........they are a joke

Link?

 

[jwoodie]

I would vote against a nominee facing reasonably credible allegations of sexual misconduct even if I were not very certain they were guilty.

You statement is either disingenuously self-serving or incredibly naive about political machinations. Which is it?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You are lying again. Most "scientists" who work for the gov are liberals. I knew many. Especially in the national weather service where you either swallowed the global warming hype or found another job.

Possibly they bought it because they understand the scientific method well enough to trust the overwhelming evidence of climate change, what is causing it and what limited options we have to limit its impact..

lol 33000 thousand years ago. Even Fred Flintstone can't help your fantasy.

Actually, by going to Antarctica and the North Pole and taking ice core samples, they have a pretty good idea what the world was like back then as far as climate goes.

And here I thought LOCAL temps and weather did not determine world wide temps and weather.

Are you really that clueless?

How would local temperatures and weather be used to show temperatures from thousands of years ago?

The ice cores are ONLY from the poles. dumb ass.

 

[rightwinger]

Possibly they bought it because they understand the scientific method well enough to trust the overwhelming evidence of climate change, what is causing it and what limited options we have to limit its impact..

lol 33000 thousand years ago. Even Fred Flintstone can't help your fantasy.

Actually, by going to Antarctica and the North Pole and taking ice core samples, they have a pretty good idea what the world was like back then as far as climate goes.

And here I thought LOCAL temps and weather did not determine world wide temps and weather.

Are you really that clueless?

How would local temperatures and weather be used to show temperatures from thousands of years ago?

The ice cores are ONLY from the poles. dumb ass.

No shit Sherlock
They provide key insight into relative global temperature changes

 

[blastoff]

The left only cares about politics...they don't care about women, blacks, gays, men, whites, Asians or anyone. If you oppose them you must be defamed and destroyed. And they are allowed to do that with no evidence....aka they just don't care.......the end ALWAYS justifies the means for them.

anytime they bring up 4th amendment issues or any due process..just laugh in their face........they are a joke

Agree but IMO the left’s interest is more power than politics. And the sky’s the limit as to what they’ll attempt to retain it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

lol 33000 thousand years ago. Even Fred Flintstone can't help your fantasy.

Actually, by going to Antarctica and the North Pole and taking ice core samples, they have a pretty good idea what the world was like back then as far as climate goes.

And here I thought LOCAL temps and weather did not determine world wide temps and weather.

Are you really that clueless?

How would local temperatures and weather be used to show temperatures from thousands of years ago?

The ice cores are ONLY from the poles. dumb ass.

No shit Sherlock
They provide key insight into relative global temperature changes

They represent two points on the globe and both are usually an extreme.

 

[rightwinger]

Actually, by going to Antarctica and the North Pole and taking ice core samples, they have a pretty good idea what the world was like back then as far as climate goes.

And here I thought LOCAL temps and weather did not determine world wide temps and weather.

Are you really that clueless?

How would local temperatures and weather be used to show temperatures from thousands of years ago?

The ice cores are ONLY from the poles. dumb ass.

No shit Sherlock
They provide key insight into relative global temperature changes

They represent two points on the globe and both are usually an extreme.

They still show temperature changes over time

 

[Pete7469]

Several of the libs aren't even real people in some cases I think. They repeat each other so often I think it's just a few apparatchiks and several computers programmed to paste the same bullshit all day. There are a handful of decent libs like OldLady and some other people that are either republicrat operatives trying to look as stupid as possible or they really are retards. You'll figure out who they are. Then there's Jake Fake and his 4 socks.

1. Liberals can not think. They've proven that. If you pay any attention to MSNBC, that's what they believe. You can't provide enough evidence to convince them they're wrong. We are talking about people who belong in a political party that used to have as their "Lion in the Senate" a...(ahem....) "man" who drove off a bridge one night into a lake. Swam out. Walked home and went to bed. Later that next day after his car had been dragged out of the water and the dead body of Mary Jo Kopechne was found inside, Ted Kennedy phoned his lawyer, and then they notified police that the piece of shit drove off a bridge and left a woman for dead, assuming she was alive in the first place.

That's the sort of "men" who lead "people" like liberals and that's why you won't find more than a few that even expose themselves to arguments that might change their programming.

I'm a mean nasty troll also BTW...

Enjoy your experience here.


.

Enough of that, Pete. I don't know why you called me here, since he wants to talk to you morons, not libs like me. I got enough "funnies" today for my Kavanaugh thread. You don't need to kick me while I'm down.

I had nothing to do with that.

I just wanted to compliment you.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And here I thought LOCAL temps and weather did not determine world wide temps and weather.

Are you really that clueless?

How would local temperatures and weather be used to show temperatures from thousands of years ago?

The ice cores are ONLY from the poles. dumb ass.

No shit Sherlock
They provide key insight into relative global temperature changes

They represent two points on the globe and both are usually an extreme.

They still show temperature changes over time

In a VERY local area.

 

[well named]

Sorry, but I don't trust Vox, and I don't trust anything they claim to "collect" from other sources, and I don't trust any source they would trust.

I think this is also a pretty good example of what I meant by "disconnect" and a lack of shared common ground. It's obviously much harder to have a productive conversation with someone if you can't find any common ground on how one should go about finding out what is true about the world.

But let me try a different tack. Probably the most important empirical claim in my argument against guns is that there is a strong association between the availability of guns and rates of gun-related violence and death. If you accept that this association exists, but disagree with the conclusions I reach for other reasons, then the dispute about Vox is moot anyway. Or, if you do not accept that this association exists, could you describe what kinds of data, or what methods, you would accept as a reliable means of establishing whether that claim is true or false? If you already believe that the claim is false, can you describe what evidence leads you to that conclusion?

I do not, in fact, have to be any more specific than "I don't accept links to people known for lying to advance their agenda"

To be clear, I just mean that it's difficult for me to take your objection seriously as long as it remains so vague. You're not giving me any actual reason to change my opinion about the reliability of the data I cited. I do not mean that you are obligated to try to persuade me.

And you're continuing to validate my perception. Was that your intention?

My intention in creating this thread was to discuss politics with people who disagree with me so strongly as to believe that I must either be lying or delusional, because I find it interesting for a variety reasons, one of which is that it's useful to challenge myself to try to explain my views coherently to skeptical audiences, in order to find weaknesses in those views. So I'm not particularly surprised by the fact that you perceive me to either be lying or delusional.

You statement is either disingenuously self-serving or incredibly naive about political machinations. Which is it?

I covered the objection from naivety in the sentences following the one you quoted, fwiw.

 

[OldLady]

Prove me wrong

This is not Islam. In America we are presumed innocent until proven guilty. I mean you were a Holocaust denier in HS and drew swastikas on schools. Prove me wrong....

You fail to prove my statement wrong
Going into an anti-Muslim rant or a Godwin Defense does nothing to help your case

Where is the proof and corroborating witnesses in fords case liar?

Collins and Manchin voted Yes. It's over. Now will you shut up about Kavanaugh PLEASE?

But like the deflector you are, those people aren't witnesses. lol! The OP stated to ask how can liberals believe. I did, but none of you liars have the spine to explain it. Instead you do what you always do, troll and deflect and attack and play your usual games and then, when you get your ass handed to you like you have today, you still have no idea why it happened. lol!

Sorry, mike. I didn't realize that was a question you were posing to the OP. I should have kept out.
I was just sick of Kavanaugh arguments.

 

[well named]

Re: inferring climate from ice cores

In a VERY local area.

I think you're making a mistake in presuming that scientists aren't aware of this problem and haven't developed reliable methods to extrapolate. See for example here: Paleoclimate

"Scientists have developed a technique by which global mean sea-surface temperatures can be deduced from measurements of the isotopic abundance of oxygen in ice cores. This technique provides us with estimates of sea-level air temperatures over the past 400,000 years with the latest long ice cores.
In order to establish the reliability of such measurements, paleoclimatologists have conducted a number of tests to calibrate this "paleoclimate thermometer" in the ice." (emphasis added)
​

As I said before, I think you can safely assume that there are relatively large error bars on these inferred global average temperatures, but I think you're clearly wrong to suggest that the data tells us nothing about climate outside of the very local area where the cores are taken.

Also, it turns out ice cores are not the only means by which we can infer things about the climate in the paleolithic. They mention also:

• rock isotopic ratios
• tree ring analysis
• deep sea sediment chemical analysis
• pollen distribution
• analysis of fossils

I'm sure again that each method has its own peculiar limits and difficulties; science is hard. But I think we ought to be careful when we're second guessing professional scientists while arguing from a position of near total ignorance about the methods they are actually using.

 

[miketx]

How can liberals believe that...they know what the temperature was 33000 years ago?

You are confusing liberals with Scientists

You are lying again. Most "scientists" who work for the gov are liberals. I knew many. Especially in the national weather service where you either swallowed the global warming hype or found another job.

Possibly they bought it because they understand the scientific method well enough to trust the overwhelming evidence of climate change, what is causing it and what limited options we have to limit its impact..

This just shows how stupid you are. 150 years worth of data on a 4 billion year old planet.