The Gaming Den

tzor wrote:

ubernoob wrote:Tzor, go eat a barrel of cocks.

Why, you are the one with your nose up the UN's ass.

Consider the whole notion of peer review, who gets it (or rather who kisses the ass of whom) and who does not.

"I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

And I see Crissa has jumped on the "Jump and hump Tzor" bandwagon. Yes indeed, now what was your point Crissa? Oh I forgot, you don't have one.

http://www.wmich.edu/research/complianc ... eview.html

That should explain it to you in small words.

I just love how we've continued to label large groups of people in narrowly defined catagories. All the easier to demonize the opposition I guess.

ubernoob wrote:First strike, Tzor.

So...

The whole "abortions cause hundreds of thousands of deaths, no I won't apologize to women for saying that" wasn't a strike?

The "Why are you calling me a teabagger and laughing just because I labeled myself as such?" wasn't a strike?

The "I'm an expert and professional in the field of economics and I tell you THERE IS AND WILL BE NO ECONOMIC CRISIS, what do you mean admit I was hilariously wrong?" wasn't a strike?

Indeed, everything he has ever said wasn't an endless series of strikes?

The only reason I don't have this slimy easily fooled pro everything terrible ever guy on ignore is because it's a really handy way to know what the American easily conned brown shirt rubes brigade is sniffing this week.

Ahem. To my knowledge, there's nothing wrong with the article that Tzor posted, other than that doofuses who read ScienceDaily imagine that it says something that it does not, tzor included.

The article does not say that CO2 is not going into the atmosphere. In fact, tzor, you quoted it where it even mentions that 45% of carbon dioxide emitted still stays up in the atmosphere. I don't know how you can quote that as some sort of evidence when it is in direct contradiction to your assertion that no CO2 is going into the atmosphere.

ScienceDaily isn't a peer reviewed Journal, but neither is Discover or Popular Science. They're fun magazines that summarize or give editorials on work done by scientists (usually peer review published work, since that's the kind that is actually put to some measure of scientific rigor).

The actual work referenced by ScienceDaily was published in Geophysical Research Letters. A sort of less in depth style of journal that is peer reviewed but does not cover papers of the same depth that most journals do. It's fare is somewhere between a journal summary and a full fledged study.

The organization behind that publication seems to be legit, and there isn't anything wrong with the way they do things so long as you understand it for what it is, and above all don't totally misrepresent the paper as stating something that it does not.

So there's no need to call into question ScienceDaily in this case. Just tzor's total misunderstanding of the article.

PhoneLobster wrote:

ubernoob wrote:First strike, Tzor.

So...

The whole "abortions cause hundreds of thousands of deaths, no I won't apologize to women for saying that" wasn't a strike?

The "Why are you calling me a teabagger and laughing just because I labeled myself as such?" wasn't a strike?

The "I'm an expert and professional in the field of economics and I tell you THERE IS AND WILL BE NO ECONOMIC CRISIS, what do you mean admit I was hilariously wrong?" wasn't a strike?

Indeed, everything he has ever said wasn't an endless series of strikes?

The only reason I don't have this slimy easily fooled pro everything terrible ever guy on ignore is because it's a really handy way to know what the American easily conned brown shirt rubes brigade is sniffing this week.

Good point, PR. Tzor is many, many strikes past his first strike. I stand corrected.

PhoneLobster wrote:The "Why are you calling me a teabagger and laughing just because I labeled myself as such?" wasn't a strike?

I cannot say who struck first, but teabagger is a reference to particular sexual act.
I wish people in the media would stop using it without realizing this.

Wait, I thought it was intentional that the douches who proclaim they are taxed enough already were called teabaggers. However, I could never tell if they were supposed to be pleasuring the wealthy elite whose interests they are fighting for, or if it was that they were rubbing their metaphorical scrotum on the face of the poor and downtrodden.

In either case, I support the continued trend of the media calling those nuts teabaggers. It fits.

Data Vampire, they totally knew that.

-Crissa

tzor wrote:

ubernoob wrote:Science daily is not censored by the United Nations agencies and universities who make the global warming scare their number one money and policy maker.

There I corrected it for you.

From New Scientist:

If you believe that tens of thousands of scientists are colluding in a massive conspiracy, nothing anyone can say is likely to dissuade you. But there are less extreme versions of this argument.

One is that climate scientists foster alarmism about global warming to boost their funding. Another is that climate scientists' dependence on government funding ensures they toe the official line.

It has taken more than a century to reach the current scientific consensus on climate change. It has come about through a steadily growing body of evidence from many different sources, and the process has hardly been secret.

Now that there is a consensus, those whose findings challenge the orthodoxy are always going have a tougher time convincing their peers, as in any field of science. For this reason, there will inevitably be pressure on scientists who challenge the consensus.

As for funding, the US spends billions of dollars on climate science and this increased by 55% from 1994 to 2004. However, an increasing portion of this is spent on mitigation technology rather than pure research. Climate scientists point out that if they were after a bigger chunk of that money, their best bet would be to stress the uncertainties of climate change and call for more research, rather than call for action.

As for the idea that scientists change their tune to keep their paymasters happy, under the Bush Administration many scientists claimed that they were pressured to tone down findings relating to climate change.

Indeed, those campaigning for action to prevent further warming have had to battle against huge vested interests, including the fossil-fuel industry and its many political allies. Many of the individuals and organisations challenging the idea of global warming have received funding from companies such as ExxonMobil.

CatharzGodfoot wrote:

Ganbare Gincun wrote:

ubernoob wrote:Jesus fucking christ, you'd think that Science Daily was the only fucking science website republicans knew about.

Republicans aren't interested in science. They are only interested in "science" that supports their dogmatic positions. So they tend to cherry pick scientific articles from either pseudo-scientific articles, poorly worded articles, or articles that have been written by scientists that have been bought and paid for.

That's total bullshit and hopefully you know it. There are plenty of people who are Republicans purely out of self-interest, and have a perfectly fine understanding of science--just as there are Democrats who are absolute Luddite douche bags. Political leanings aren't the be-all and end-all, even if the Democratic party tends to be more friendly towards science on average.

You mean the Republican Party that is filled with people that don't believe in evolution, climate change, or environmental protection? The party that have blocked stem cell research for the last eight years? The one filled with people that are opposed to birth control and want to outlaw abortions no matter what the circumstances? The ones that wanted to implement "missile defense" systems that weren't even tested to see if they worked or not?

Oh, yeah. Those guys are *totally* pro-science. My bad.

Oh, the missile defense systems were tested. We know they don't work yet. You could see the tests from California and Alaska. Only one even came close. And I know one of the guys who worked on the project. He's as nutty as tzor, but his programming is solid.

-Crissa

tzor wrote:

ubernoob wrote:Science daily is not censored by the United Nations agencies and universities who make the global warming scare their number one money and policy maker.

There I corrected it for you.

tzor wrote:

Ganbare Gincun wrote:Democrats aren't interested in science. They are only interested in "science" that supports their dogmatic positions. So they tend to cherry pick scientific articles from either pseudo-scientific articles, poorly worded articles, or articles that have been written by scientists that have been bought and paid for.

There, I corrected it for you.

I don't know why you act like democrats and scientists have some sort of secret agenda to create this false notion of global warming. It's a neutral stance. They don't stand to gain from it. Republicans and big business owners do however have a huge financial reason to try to disprove global warming.

That, and we have two types of research going on right now:

1) Neutral climate change research that found global warming as the conclusion without going out of their way to find it, and

2) Privately funded research with the clear goal to disprove global warming funded by the same companies that stand to lose tons of money otherwise.

So, all other things being equal, I have a lot harder time believing anything someone says when they have that much motivation to lie and someone's not double checking their numbers/facts.

Data Vampire wrote:I cannot say who struck first, but teabagger is a reference to particular sexual act.
I wish people in the media would stop using it without realizing this.

First of all it is a fundamental credo of the progressive movement (and thus the progressive media) that they have the right to fuck conservatives any time and any place. Why just look here, everyone is constantly insulting me. I don't think I have even started to pull out any similiar punches to that (..... ..... .. . .....) Crissia or that (......... ....... ....... .. ...........) Frank, but I could be wrong. They can't argue without it.

Second of all, in the same way that the progressives want to dismiss the movement (and yes there are several) they can't even get them straight in their own mind. The tea bag movement (not tea baggers) was a one time event to flood the Capital Lawn with crates of tea bags. They also wanted to send tea bags in the mail. That's where the "Let's 'tea bag' Barny Frank" came in, from where the media grabbed the "teabagging" and thus the "teabagger" labels.

The "Tea Party" movement, for the most part wanted to use loose tea as they did in the original event, but dumping loose tea into rivers and harbors would probably get the environmentalists into a feeding frenzy so this was avoided like the plague. (Never mind how much coffee is routinely dumped into the sewers of Seattle.)

This is distinct from the 912 movement, although people who are involved in tea parties may also be involved in the 912 movement as well.

RobbyPants wrote:

tzor wrote:

Ganbare Gincun wrote:Democrats aren't interested in science. They are only interested in "science" that supports their dogmatic positions. So they tend to cherry pick scientific articles from either pseudo-scientific articles, poorly worded articles, or articles that have been written by scientists that have been bought and paid for.

There, I corrected it for you.

I don't know why you act like democrats and scientists have some sort of secret agenda to create this false notion of global warming.

Oops: Argument by inverstion or reversal is one of those ones that can easily be misinterperted. Ganbare insisted "Republicans" aren't interested in science. I reversed it by substituting "Democrats." Both statements are equally stupid, but only when view together (by simply replacing the label) is that obvious.

One last point. I'm not a believer of sceret agendas, but I am a believer in human nature. If you look at the videos I linked to eariler in their thread you will notice something hidden in the course of the videos; real research is god damned awfull expensive. Contrary to popular opinion, scientists are not hippies who live on peace love and joy, they are people who need a full time job working on projects that generally cost a lot of money. (Yes even those global warming guys; they have a travel budget you know.) Running experments, getting from one place to another, all costs money; money that can only be obtained through grants which is, in and of itself, another process of fucking hell. Then it has to be published because your grant givers get pissed if they don't have anything impressive to show for their pork barrel donation to you.

Gravy trains in Science don't often happen. Taking advantage of them is not a "secret agenda" but a fact of life that everyone likes to cut corners if they have the chance. But what a chance! That bullshit research project of yours would normally never be funded but add "climate change" and watch the cash come a rolling in. IT pays the rent, but please don't confuse it with real science.

Tzor, you don't get to pull the niceness card after accusing raped nine year olds of being complicit in genocide by dint of refusing to their uteri ripped to shreds by the growth of fetuses that are directly and obviously too large for their tiny bodies. You just don't. You don't ever get to pull the niceness card ever again because you already specifically revealed yourself to be an inhuman monster beyond mortal comprehension.

And no, this isn't an exaggeration for effect or anything. Nine year old girl got raped, your church condemned her and everyone who pitched in to save her life, and you had the gall to support your church in its barbarity. This is a real event. No amount of dismissive insults on my part can ever reach the pinnacle of villainy you already displayed.

You came out in favor of gleefully preventing small and damaged children from having life saving medical procedures while their insides were ripped to pieces over a period of months by the leavings of evil men. And not in a humorous, fantastic, or hypothetical fashion, but in a demonstrable and specific fashion that has a very real meaning in the real world. One that is part of an international movement that has real power and really does these horrible crimes in your name, and which really creates the deaths of real people, real children, every single day.

So no. I don't feel the need to treat you with respect. If you link to a reasonable argument I may be inclined to respond to it. But I don't respect you. I will never respect you, because you crossed the line on what people can do and still be worthy of respect a long time ago.

-Username17

tzor wrote:

RobbyPants wrote:

tzor wrote: There, I corrected it for you.

I don't know why you act like democrats and scientists have some sort of secret agenda to create this false notion of global warming.

Oops: Argument by inverstion or reversal is one of those ones that can easily be misinterperted. Ganbare insisted "Republicans" aren't interested in science. I reversed it by substituting "Democrats." Both statements are equally stupid, but only when view together (by simply replacing the label) is that obvious.

Please view my earlier post in the thread. I think I make it pretty clear why the Republican Party is anti-science. Switching around a word in my original statement doesn't make this any less true. When the Fundamentalist Christians that comprise the party decide to acknowledge something as basic as evolution, then we'll talk about revoking the anti-science moniker.

Ganbare Gincun wrote:When the Fundamentalist Christians that comprise the party decide to acknowledge something as basic as evolution, then we'll talk about revoking the anti-science moniker.

Fundamentalist Christians are not the "Republican Party" they are one element in the Republican Party (and generally only within the "Bible Belt"). The only way they can push Creationism or "Creation Science" (a true oxymoron) is when they as Fundamentalist Chrtistians have a majority, not when Republicans have a majority.

Tzor, you don't get to pull the niceness card after accusing raped nine year olds of being complicit in genocide by dint of refusing to have their uteri ripped to shreds by the growth of fetuses that are directly and obviously too large for their tiny bodies. You just don't. You don't ever get to pull the niceness card ever again because you already specifically revealed yourself to be an inhuman monster beyond mortal comprehension.

And no, this isn't an exaggeration for effect or anything. Nine year old girl got raped, your church condemned her and everyone who pitched in to save her life, and you had the gall to support your church in its barbarity. This is a real event. A specific, real girl was subjected to your church demanding that she be allowed to be tortured to death. And you supported their decision. Not through the ambient support of having supported the entire organization and thus being in some small amount complicit for all their atrocities, but by the specific and unconscionable pronouncement that the church was right to do so in that instance. No amount of dismissive insults on my part can ever reach the pinnacle of villainy you already displayed.

You came out in favor of gleefully preventing small and damaged children from having life saving medical procedures while their insides were ripped to pieces over a period of months by the leavings of evil men. And not in a humorous, fantastic, or hypothetical fashion, but in a demonstrable and specific fashion that has a very real meaning in the real world. One that is part of an international movement that has real power and really does these horrible crimes in your name, and which really creates the deaths of real people, real children, every single day.

-Username17

tzor wrote:

Ganbare Gincun wrote:When the Fundamentalist Christians that comprise the party decide to acknowledge something as basic as evolution, then we'll talk about revoking the anti-science moniker.

Fundamentalist Christians are not the "Republican Party" they are one element in the Republican Party (and generally only within the "Bible Belt"). The only way they can push Creationism or "Creation Science" (a true oxymoron) is when they as Fundamentalist Chrtistians have a majority, not when Republicans have a majority.

Given the fact that 60% of Republicans believe in Creationism, I'd say that the Fundamentalists have a clear majority within the Party. Mind you, this poll was taken in 2008 - the number is probably higher now, what with the Party purging its ranks of moderates and all.

More specifically, it doesn't actually matter if they are in the majority.

It only matters if 50% or more elected Republican officials fall within 3 groups:

1) People who are creationist or anti-science.
2) People who require the votes of creationist or anti-science constituents with a credible threat of losing their primaries if they act like intelligent people.
3) People who don't care enough about science and evolution to oppose the party line set by a plurality.

Since categories 1 and 2 make up more than half of all Republicans, that makes them very very much and anti-science party. Even if it wasn't reflected in the actual party rolls. Which it is.

In fact, 100 fucking percent of all Republicans fall into those three categories, as we can see because not a single fucking person ever actually opposes creation science in the republican party, including Tzor, who will sit here and claim that Republican party is not pro creation because only a majority and not 100% of them actually believe that shit.

But does Tzor actually try to oppose those people? Of course not, he votes for them.

FrankTrollman wrote:You don't ever get to pull the niceness card ever again because you already specifically revealed yourself to be an inhuman monster beyond mortal comprehension.

I don't think that makes him inhuman, and certainly not beyond mortal comprehension. And seriously, evil people can be nice. There are definitely those who value niceties over the lives of others.

Strangely, the Tea-Partiers never actually had a platform.

If they did, they'd probably be as unpopular as any other.

It's not like Equal-Rights groups or anti-war groups got together each more people to protest an equal number of times this year. Oh, wait, they did.

Tazo is right, we don't respect him. How can you tell? We stopped bothering to provide links to support our statements.

-Crissa

Ganbare Gincun wrote:Given the fact that 60% of Republicans believe in Creationism, ...

Given the fact that 38% of Democrats believe in Creationism ...

It also doesn't tell us about which percentages of those who do believe in Creationism would impose it in public schools over that of evolution.

Kaelik wrote:But does Tzor actually try to oppose those people? Of course not, he votes for them.

Creationism doesn't come up at all in New York, and if it did you would be laughed off of the stage. This is our local town's Republican Platform which gave us a 100% Republican town board this year. Note there is no mention whatsoever of creationism.

Members of the Riverhead Republican Committee are duly elected to represent the interests of the enrolled Republicans of the Town of Riverhead. It is the obligation of the Riverhead Republican Committee to promote and progress at the local levels the ideals, principles and philosophy of the Republican National Committee. In order to do so, it is necessary that the Riverhead Republican Committee as an organization recognize as its primary role the need to pursue, nominate and support candidates for public office who agree with and can support and defend the following platform

• Promote investment in our community that will lead to economic growth and stability and job creation and opportunity
• Encourage consumer spending that will support local businesses and encourage local business growth.
• Recognize and honor the rights of property owners.
• Promote and practice fiscal responsibility and control spending with the intent of lowering taxes.
  Promote an effective, responsible and responsive government whose elected officials and leaders conduct themselves professionally, morally, and ethically and respond to all with which they come in contact with compassion, fairness and respect.
• Recognize that the proper role of government is to provide for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals and private organizations and that the best government is that which governs least.
• Recognize the need to balance growth with our environment; but above all, understand that the most endangered species in the Town of Riverhead is the taxpayer.
• Improve our quality of life and strengthen our community so that our children can grow up in a town in which all their hopes and dreams can come true.

I can tell you even with a 100% Republican town council that issue is never going to come up. The Roman Catholic (and proud member of the K of C) Town Supervisor wouldn't even think of it. Nor would the reelected member who is a also a Roman Catholic and proud Knight of Columbus. Nor would our other member who is a Congregationalist and proud Mason.

P.S. It's the "fiscal" conservatives who are pushing out the less fiscally conservative, not the "social" conservatives. That includes "social" conservatives who do not follow common sense principles on the nature of limited government. Most Republicans that I know of will insist that it is the School Board not the Government that should make decisions as to what should be taught in local schools.