The Mind of a Republican (why they are evil)

[ScreamingEagle]

If you think they haven't, prove it <3. You made the assertion first, sweetcheeks.

Put up or shut up.

 

[Larkinn]

Put up or shut up.

I take it that means you don't have the evidence, do you?

YOU made the claim, dumbass. Don't make a claim and then ask me to provide proof that its wrong.

 

[Bern80]

Nice dodge. I'm never going to get my link to the "thousands of scientists" who support the 1500 cycle am I? Not really a surprise...you obviously don't have any idea what you are talking about.

You will get a link as soon as I get one saying more than 1000 scientists have disproven it, how's that? Do I know the exact number of scientists that support it, honestly, no. I don't know if it's 500, or 5,000. I don't know because it isn't the general habit of the scientific community to sign off on the accuracy of everyone's work. There really isn't a place to search and find out 'how many scientists agree with x'. Short of going around and asking the opinion of 1000 plus qualified scientists myself. You can find other studies of course that corroborate things. I do believe that since other independant studies have corroborrated the existance of the cycle and despite searching have been unable to find any dissent to the findings that the theory is worth takeing seriously.

It's not really the point. Though I certainly undertsand why you want to make it the point. It allows you to say you're right without haveing to atually disprove the evidence itself, which is basically what you do in every debate (sign of a good lawyer I guess). I want you to be honest for second, if that's possible. What would you do if I presented such a list? Would you concede (something you've never done even with the facts stareing you in the face) or try your damndest to make yet another excuse? Based on your behavior, opposing arguments with you are unwinnable even with the facts to back it up. You will always make sure you have an excuse that has nothing to do with evidence itself just as you have done in this debate. You dodge, you demand, you spin, you play word games all in an attempt to avoid refuting the actual evidence. At the end of the day you are more interested in proveing people wrong than learning about a different idea. Thus you will never learn any new ideas. I know you alread have the next excuse waiting in the wings before I even present evidence 'well that's beyond mine or your comprehension so you can't enter it as evidence" or some other BS. I know it would really be the end of the world for you if you ever had to admit little old me was right and arrogant, elitist you were wrong.

Seriously this is getting stupid. I stand by the 'thousands'. I told you where you can find them. What really is the point of me laying everything on a silver platter for you? I really don't have the inclination to type the entire bibliography out for you. Really think about you're doing. You're behaveing like a two year old. Basically what your crap adds up to is that the only way you're gonna entertain a different idea, despite the information being readily available to you is if the material is laid out just so in front of you. We have passed the point of a reasonable exchange of ideas. Again the information is there. Whether you want to expose yourself to it or not is up to you.

 

[Larkinn]

You will get a link as soon as I get one saying more than 1000 scientists have disproven it, how's that? Do I know the exact number of scientists that support it, honestly, no. I don't know if it's 500, or 5,000. I don't know because it isn't the general habit of the scientific community to sign off on the accuracy of everyone's work.

It is with global warming theories, because they are so controversial. And you made the claim, so you are required to back it up. Which you've just admitted you can't do, so I'd say a retraction is in order.

There really isn't a place to search and find out 'how many scientists agree with x'. Short of going around and asking the opinion of 1000 plus qualified scientists myself.

I found one for the IPCC report.

You can find other studies of course that corroborate things. I do believe that since other independant studies have corroborrated the existance of the cycle and despite searching have been unable to find any dissent to the findings that the theory is worth takeing seriously.

Find me where these theories have passed peer review and maybe we can talk. But as of now they are just in a book.

It's not really the point. Though I certainly undertsand why you want to make it the point. It allows you to say you're right without haveing to atually disprove the evidence itself, which is basically what you do in every debate (sign of a good lawyer I guess).

The point is, as I've said before, neither me nor you are qualified to make scientific assessments on these matters.

I want you to be honest for second, if that's possible. What would you do if I presented such a list? Would you concede (something you've never done even with the facts stareing you in the face) or try your damndest to make yet another excuse?

I'm curious as to why you want me to anwser a hypothetical that won't happen? I would concede its a possibility...but I did a bit of research on Singer. I am fairly convinced he is a hack out to prove a particular pov. You failed to respond to my question about him saying 3 years ago that global warming was not happening at all, and now suddenly saying that it is happening but its not man made. How is this a reliable source?

Based on your behavior, opposing arguments with you are unwinnable even with the facts to back it up. You will always make sure you have an excuse that has nothing to do with evidence itself just as you have done in this debate.

Bern you don't have any facts to back you up. I could sit here and argue the science with you, but why? It would be like two monkeys arguing the merits of shakespeare. You are simply NOT qualified to argue whether its true or not based on the science. Neither am I. This has NOTHING to do with intelligence and everything to do with knowledge. YOU yourself attacked someones views on global warming because they are a "historian"...but yet you think you are qualified to make an assessment about the science of it?

You dodge, you demand, you spin, you play word games all in an attempt to avoid refuting the actual evidence. At the end of the day you are more interested in proveing people wrong than learning about a different idea. Thus you will never learn any new ideas.

I don't care to learn ideas that have little to no scientific merit.

I know you alread have the next excuse waiting in the wings before I even present evidence 'well that's beyond mine or your comprehension so you can't enter it as evidence" or some other BS. I know it would really be the end of the world for you if you ever had to admit little old me was right and arrogant, elitist you were wrong.

I am often wrong. It just so happens that you are wrong much more often.

Seriously this is getting stupid. I stand by the 'thousands'. I told you where you can find them. What really is the point of me laying everything on a silver platter for you? I really don't have the inclination to type the entire bibliography out for you.

I already explained to you why the bibliography is useless. I see where your frustration comes from. I ask you to back something up, and you want to back it up with something irrelevant, or use a logical flaw, or some other utter stupidity. Then when I point out how its flawed you accuse me of playing word games or some other bullshit charge. The bibliography is NOT evidence that anyone else agrees with this guy. That you want to use it is apparent evidence that you haven't found anyone who does...because he is basically a renegade who nobody agrees with.

Really think about you're doing. You're behaveing like a two year old. Basically what your crap adds up to is that the only way you're gonna entertain a different idea, despite the information being readily available to you is if the material is laid out just so in front of you.

I entertain different ideas all the time. However I, unlike you, know my own limitations.

We have passed the point of a reasonable exchange of ideas. Again the information is there. Whether you want to expose yourself to it or not is up to you.

This is really hilarious and quite sad. Go to a neo-nazi board and try to prove the holocaust existed to them. You'll find they use very similar tactics against you as you are using against me. The old "experience new ideas", and "if you don't/can't disprove it, it must have merit" are old tricks in their book. Learn how to argue, how to debate, and that science is a lot more complicated than you think it is.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I take it that means you don't have the evidence, do you?

YOU made the claim, dumbass. Don't make a claim and then ask me to provide proof that its wrong.

No proof? Time for you to shut up.

 

[Bern80]

I Find me where these theories have passed peer review and maybe we can talk. But as of now they are just in a book.

Actually it was published in the journal Science as well which is peer reviewed. The study also won won the Tyler prize in 1996 which is considered the environemntal Nobel prize. Let the excuses ensue

The point is, as I've said before, neither me nor you are qualified to make scientific assessments on these matters.

Yet your qualified enough to be certain I'm wrong....interesting. Let the excuses ensue.

I'm curious as to why you want me to anwser a hypothetical that won't happen? I would concede its a possibility...but I did a bit of research on Singer. I am fairly convinced he is a hack out to prove a particular pov. You failed to respond to my question about him saying 3 years ago that global warming was not happening at all, and now suddenly saying that it is happening but its not man made. How is this a reliable source?

Because it goes to the heart of whether it is worth debating you at all. All the evidence in the world can't permeate a closed mind. As to what he said three years ago you already answered that yourself. You stated yourself because the findings of the 1500 year cycle are some 20 years old they are likely to be inaccurate. Thus by the same token if Sanger has come to a new conclusion said new conclusion should be more accurate than his previous one. According to your thinking anyway. Let the excuses ensue.

Bern you don't have any facts to back you up. I could sit here and argue the science with you, but why? It would be like two monkeys arguing the merits of shakespeare. You are simply NOT qualified to argue whether its true or not based on the science. Neither am I. This has NOTHING to do with intelligence and everything to do with knowledge. YOU yourself attacked someones views on global warming because they are a "historian"...but yet you think you are qualified to make an assessment about the science of it?

They are there in black and white. I dare you to call up Mr. Dansgaard in Denmark and tell him what he discovered is not factual. But no, you have to attack the messenger (Sanger) because you think he's a hack therefore you don't have to read it (excuse again). He presented Dansgaard's work. You need to get you're facts right also. What the author you cited spoke on was not her perespective on global warming. She spoke on a study she did to prove consensus on it, which later proven to be innacurate and lacking. Let the excuses ensue.

I don't care to learn ideas that have little to no scientific merit.

I see you don't know enough about it but to talk about it, yet you know Dansgaard, Oeschger, Sanger, and Avery and a fairly long list of others have know merit again despite claiming you can't uderstand the science behind it. Let the excuses ensue.

I already explained to you why the bibliography is useless. I see where your frustration comes from. I ask you to back something up, and you want to back it up with something irrelevant, or use a logical flaw, or some other utter stupidity. Then when I point out how its flawed you accuse me of playing word games or some other bullshit charge. The bibliography is NOT evidence that anyone else agrees with this guy. That you want to use it is apparent evidence that you haven't found anyone who does...because he is basically a renegade who nobody agrees with.

That's just it you haven't provided any evidence at all that Dansgaard and Oeschger's finding are flawed. Your last statement is 100&#37; patently false. Let the excuses ensue.

This is really hilarious and quite sad. Go to a neo-nazi board and try to prove the holocaust existed to them. You'll find they use very similar tactics against you as you are using against me. The old "experience new ideas", and "if you don't/can't disprove it, it must have merit" are old tricks in their book. Learn how to argue, how to debate, and that science is a lot more complicated than you think it is.

You are the one who needs to learn to debate. I asked you to do one simple thing. Show me evidence that the 1500 year cycle is inaccurate and doesn't explain the current warming trend. To this point you have been able to do that. yet I am the one who needs to learn how to debate huh. You have insisted on makeing excuses at every turn to avoid readinf evidence of a different view, but again I am the one who needs to learn to debate.

I am done debateing you at this point. It is ironic that you bring up neo-nazi's you are the one using all of their tactics. They deny the holocaust because of the people the information comes from not the facts of the case itself. You deny an alternative view of global warming not based any factual evidence against it, but based on the sources it comes from.

 

[Larkinn]

No proof? Time for you to shut up.

I didn't make the claim, dumbass. You did. Just curious tho...do you think my "failure" to prove that you are wrong means you are right?

 

[Larkinn]

Actually it was published in the journal Science as well which is peer reviewed. The study also won won the Tyler prize in 1996 which is considered the environemntal Nobel prize. Let the excuses ensue

Link please?

Yet your qualified enough to be certain I'm wrong....interesting. Let the excuses ensue.

No, I'm intelligent enough to trust actual scientists over you.

Because it goes to the heart of whether it is worth debating you at all. All the evidence in the world can't permeate a closed mind. As to what he said three years ago you already answered that yourself. You stated yourself because the findings of the 1500 year cycle are some 20 years old they are likely to be inaccurate. Thus by the same token if Sanger has come to a new conclusion said new conclusion should be more accurate than his previous one. According to your thinking anyway. Let the excuses ensue.

Wow...this is truly a pathetic attempt at reasoning. So if you are going to use the excuse that old research is wrong, than that means YOU ARE WRONG. I would assume you want to try to prove that you are NOT wrong and hence would give me some justification that supports it. That you haven't is very telling.

They are there in black and white. I dare you to call up Mr. Dansgaard in Denmark and tell him what he discovered is not factual.

And you've shown me little except speculation from Singer that those facts lead to a 1500 year cycle.

But no, you have to attack the messenger (Sanger) because you think he's a hack therefore you don't have to read it (excuse again). He presented Dansgaard's work.

He does NOT just present Dansgaard's work. He adds his own theory to it.

You need to get you're facts right also. What the author you cited spoke on was not her perespective on global warming. She spoke on a study she did to prove consensus on it, which later proven to be innacurate and lacking. Let the excuses ensue.

The IPCC is NOT inaccurate and lacking. That lie you've been passing around for a while now with no evidence. That is has flaws (as all studies do) does not mean it is "inaccurate and lacking", especially considering the entirety of it is around 300 pages.

I see you don't know enough about it but to talk about it, yet you know Dansgaard, Oeschger, Sanger, and Avery and a fairly long list of others have know merit again despite claiming you can't uderstand the science behind it. Let the excuses ensue.

Come now...post the "fairly long list of others"...

By the way...here is a rebuttal. http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/1001/1001_feature.html

That's just it you haven't provided any evidence at all that Dansgaard and Oeschger's finding are flawed. Your last statement is 100% patently false. Let the excuses ensue.

I don't need too. That nobody agrees with them is enough.

You are the one who needs to learn to debate. I asked you to do one simple thing. Show me evidence that the 1500 year cycle is inaccurate and doesn't explain the current warming trend. To this point you have been able to do that. yet I am the one who needs to learn how to debate huh.

Lmao...the way YOU want to solve this debate is not the only way to solve the debate. You just dislike the way I am proving you wrong. Boo hoo, deal with it.

You have insisted on makeing excuses at every turn to avoid readinf evidence of a different view, but again I am the one who needs to learn to debate.

You confuse justifications with excuses. But then again you never were very bright.

I am done debateing you at this point. It is ironic that you bring up neo-nazi's you are the one using all of their tactics. They deny the holocaust because of the people the information comes from not the facts of the case itself.

Jesus...you are truly fucking stupid. You are claiming the reason I deny your idiotic theories is the same reason neo-nazis deny the holocaust. That has nothing to do with tactics. Oh wait, I'm playing word games again. I'm sorry, your right...I won't play word games, I'll just let you continue on spewing inaccurate, idiotic, meaningless statements.

You deny an alternative view of global warming not based any factual evidence against it, but based on the sources it comes from.

Welcome to the real world, son. We don't have time to learn everything about every topic. Neither do you...my solution is to listen to the people who really know what they are talking about. Your solution is to half ass the science, learn a little bit, and then pretend you know what the fuck you are talking about.

 

[Bern80]

Link please?



No, I'm intelligent enough to trust actual scientists over you.



Wow...this is truly a pathetic attempt at reasoning. So if you are going to use the excuse that old research is wrong, than that means YOU ARE WRONG. I would assume you want to try to prove that you are NOT wrong and hence would give me some justification that supports it. That you haven't is very telling.



And you've shown me little except speculation from Singer that those facts lead to a 1500 year cycle.



He does NOT just present Dansgaard's work. He adds his own theory to it.



The IPCC is NOT inaccurate and lacking. That lie you've been passing around for a while now with no evidence. That is has flaws (as all studies do) does not mean it is "inaccurate and lacking", especially considering the entirety of it is around 300 pages.



Come now...post the "fairly long list of others"...

By the way...here is a rebuttal. http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/1001/1001_feature.html



I don't need too. That nobody agrees with them is enough.



Lmao...the way YOU want to solve this debate is not the only way to solve the debate. You just dislike the way I am proving you wrong. Boo hoo, deal with it.



You confuse justifications with excuses. But then again you never were very bright.



Jesus...you are truly fucking stupid. You are claiming the reason I deny your idiotic theories is the same reason neo-nazis deny the holocaust. That has nothing to do with tactics. Oh wait, I'm playing word games again. I'm sorry, your right...I won't play word games, I'll just let you continue on spewing inaccurate, idiotic, meaningless statements.



Welcome to the real world, son. We don't have time to learn everything about every topic. Neither do you...my solution is to listen to the people who really know what they are talking about. Your solution is to half ass the science, learn a little bit, and then pretend you know what the fuck you are talking about.

The reason I will no longer debate you is faily simple and really has nothing to do with whether I'm right or you're right. I asked myself a question; Assuming I'm right is there anyway at all to present evidence to Larkin in a way that he will concede this theiry is worth merit? The answer to that question is no. The reason the answer is no has nothing to do with facts being on my side or your side. The reason the answer is no is your personality. That has been the case in every debate I have had with you. You simply do not have the ability to argue facts which forces you to resort to tactics and word games that are inarguable or insult intelligence (quite literally in your case). You ask me to do things that you are not willing to do yourself. I have told you time and time again where to find information and make a judgement for yourself which was meat with an endless stream of excuses as to why you won't do that. I did read the article in your link. It was interesting. I, as you did, interpretted it to ascertain what the author was saying in a nutshell. I of course have my opinions as to what you think he said, but I don't see the point in continuing the debate with someone who enters a debate from a flawed perspective.

When one side of an argument is unwilling to objectively examine evidence, put arrogance, animosity and condescension aside all the facts in the world are meaningless. The future will tell who is right and who is wrong. Someday one of us will get to send out a big 'I told you so'. Until then, we're done. Best of luck on becomeing a lawyer. You'll be good at it.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I didn't make the claim, dumbass. You did. Just curious tho...do you think my "failure" to prove that you are wrong means you are right?

You are the one who made the claim that my proposition was absurd. I said prove it. The onus is on you. Your failure means that it's time for you to stop talking out of your ass because it really stinks up the place.

 

[Larkinn]

You are the one who made the claim that my proposition was absurd. I said prove it. The onus is on you. Your failure means that it's time for you to stop talking out of your ass because it really stinks up the place.

YOU have the responsibility to prove that you are right, I don't have the responsibility to prove that you are wrong. Basic fucking logic...get a clue, son.

 

[Larkinn]

The reason I will no longer debate you is faily simple and really has nothing to do with whether I'm right or you're right. I asked myself a question; Assuming I'm right is there anyway at all to present evidence to Larkin in a way that he will concede this theiry is worth merit? The answer to that question is no. The reason the answer is no has nothing to do with facts being on my side or your side. The reason the answer is no is your personality. That has been the case in every debate I have had with you. You simply do not have the ability to argue facts which forces you to resort to tactics and word games that are inarguable or insult intelligence (quite literally in your case). You ask me to do things that you are not willing to do yourself. I have told you time and time again where to find information and make a judgement for yourself which was meat with an endless stream of excuses as to why you won't do that. I did read the article in your link. It was interesting. I, as you did, interpretted it to ascertain what the author was saying in a nutshell. I of course have my opinions as to what you think he said, but I don't see the point in continuing the debate with someone who enters a debate from a flawed perspective.

When one side of an argument is unwilling to objectively examine evidence, put arrogance, animosity and condescension aside all the facts in the world are meaningless. The future will tell who is right and who is wrong. Someday one of us will get to send out a big 'I told you so'. Until then, we're done. Best of luck on becomeing a lawyer. You'll be good at it.

I have no interest in telling you 'I told you so'. You are wrong, are unable to argue this point with any decent amount of competence, and the scientists are, as I've shown, on my side and NOT on yours. You are apparently shitty at admitting you are wrong as well, and you still haven't retracted that claim of "thousands of scientists" which I proved to be incorrect. You know its a bullshit claim, but yet you keep squirming around trying to avoid admitting it. And then you have the nerve to accuse ME of squirming? Peh, you are pathetic.

 

[Shogun]

 

[Bern80]

I have no interest in telling you 'I told you so'. You are wrong, are unable to argue this point with any decent amount of competence, and the scientists are, as I've shown, on my side and NOT on yours. You are apparently shitty at admitting you are wrong as well, and you still haven't retracted that claim of "thousands of scientists" which I proved to be incorrect. You know its a bullshit claim, but yet you keep squirming around trying to avoid admitting it. And then you have the nerve to accuse ME of squirming? Peh, you are pathetic.

"thousands of scientists" which I proved to be incorrect.

How exactley? What did I miss? I'm fairly certain you haven't posted anything to the effect that you were able to ascertain the opinion of every qualified scientist on the subject and found it to be less than a thousand. So no, you did not prove me incorrect. You proved that I can't prove there are a thousand that support it. For the record yes I will admit I was wrong and was presumptuous to say a thousand scientists support it. I was wrong because I don't know whether it's true, not because I know it to be false.

I take it back. You won't make a very good lawyer if you can't grasp the simple concept of what constitutes proveing something.

 

[Larkinn]

How exactley? What did I miss? I'm fairly certain you haven't posted anything to the effect that you were able to ascertain the opinion of every qualified scientist on the subject and found it to be less than a thousand. So no, you did not prove me incorrect. You proved that I can't prove there are a thousand that support it.

Lmfao...please don't ever accuse me of playing word games again, you fucking hypocrite. But yes...you are correct, I proved that you can't support your bullshit assertion as opposed to proving it incorrect.

For the record yes I will admit I was wrong and was presumptuous to say a thousand scientists support it. I was wrong because I don't know whether it's true, not because I know it to be false.

And in fact the scientists who support Singer are very few, if any.

I take it back. You won't make a very good lawyer if you can't grasp the simple concept of what constitutes proveing something.

Lmao...do you honestly think your opinion of whether I will make a good lawyer or not means anything at all?

 

[Annie]

Lmfao...please don't ever accuse me of playing word games again, you fucking hypocrite. But yes...you are correct, I proved that you can't support your bullshit assertion as opposed to proving it incorrect.



And in fact the scientists who support Singer are very few, if any.



Lmao...do you honestly think your opinion of whether I will make a good lawyer or not means anything at all?

Never mind what anyone tells you, including me. If I were you I'd be very concerned that in this one post he owned you, up until the end; you reponse to that was over the top more than weak.

 

[Bern80]

Lmfao...please don't ever accuse me of playing word games again, you fucking hypocrite.

How am I a hypocrite? This is what you said:

claim of "thousands of scientists" which I proved to be incorrect.

You claimed you proved something. I asked you where you proved that thousands of scientists don't support the theory (which would be the opposite of my claim, the claim you say you proved incorrect). You provided nothing.

It's yet another very simple question: Did you prove that thousands of scientists don't support that theory?

That isn't playing word games. The statement you made is either true or false. I had the decency to admit that I made an assertion that I shouldn't have because I don't know whether it's accurate or not. If you are really going to stand by the statment you made, then the burden of proof falls on you. Just as when I made the thousands support it claim the burden fell on me. I made the assertion. I have to prove it. I couldn't. You made the assertion that thousand of scientists dont support the theory. Despite saying you proved it, it shoudl be quite clear that you in fact didn't. There is only one way to prove what you said. you somehow have to show that less than 'thousands' of scientists agree with it. You haven't done that.

 

[Larkinn]

You claimed you proved something. I asked you where you proved that thousands of scientists don't support the theory (which would be the opposite of my claim). You provided nothing.

I proved that you have no support for your claim. And you are a hypocrite because the difference between that and my previous claim is marginal at best. There is, most definitely, a difference, but it is semantical really. I find it hilarious that you, after bitching for eons and eons about how all I do is play word games and crap like that, pull something like this.

It's yet another very simple question: Did you prove that thousands of scientists don't support that theory?

Nope.

That isn't playing word games. The statement you made is either true or false. I had the decency to admit that I made assertion that I shouldn't have. I'll even let you off the hook. You worded it wrong, it isnt' what you meant to say whatever. But if you are really going to stand by the statment you made, then the burden of proof falls on you. Just as when I made the the thousands support it claim the burden fell on me. I made the assertion. I have to prove it. I couldn't. You made the assertion that thousand of scientists dont support the theory. Despite saying you proved it, it shoudl be quite clear that you in fact didn't. So....prove it or retract it.

Reading comprehension is your friend... I proved that you can't support your bullshit assertion as opposed to proving it[the assertion itself] incorrect.

 

[Bern80]

I proved that you have no support for your claim. And you are a hypocrite because the difference between that and my previous claim is marginal at best. There is, most definitely, a difference, but it is semantical really. I find it hilarious that you, after bitching for eons and eons about how all I do is play word games and crap like that, pull something like this.



Nope.



Reading comprehension is your friend... I proved that you can't support your bullshit assertion as opposed to proving it[the assertion itself] incorrect.

And sentence structure is your friend. Nowhere can it be implied in that sentence that it was your intent to prove that I can't support the assertion. The way you wrote the sentence it quite clearly says it was the assertion itself that you disproved. If you need to change your story because you got caught, fine. Big vicotry for Larkin. I already admitted the former. I know you will do absoultely anything before admitting to makeing a mistake. I've passed the point of debating the issue. Now the point is to simply let your arrogance hang you. I think we're getting there.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

YOU have the responsibility to prove that you are right, I don't have the responsibility to prove that you are wrong. Basic fucking logic...get a clue, son.

Wrong. That is a logical fallacy. Provide proof why it was absurd or bite the wall pinhead.