Gas Bandit's Political Thread

[Jake]

So now the Bible is on equal footing with scientific literature? I knew you were Invader all along.

Most of the so-called "scientific literature" re: global warming is actually more on footing equal with that of Mad Magazine. But it's treated with the reverence of religious text.

Are you sure it's the scientific literature itself or is it the interpretation and commentary by the "the media" and "liberal celebrities" that you're gnashing your eteeth over? Because those are entirely different arenas of thought.

 

[GasBandit]

When you're done doing the logical equivalent of flailing desperately, you might could stop and point out the part where I was "whining" about something.

I can totally point it out.. wait let's see, ah yes here it is.. THIS ENTIRE THREAD! All it is whining. Liberals wahhh, the country is doomed boo hoo, etc wahhh.

If that's your take on the thread, why are you in it?

And I really laugh at you mentioning logic after comparing my telling you to become more educated, educated on a topic you had just referenced, to religion. That is seriously laughable. Ludicrous even.

Global Warming is the religion of the nonreligious. It has its canon, it has its preachers, and it has its devoted, blinkered followers.

I am, unfortunately, very well educated on the theory of global warming because for some dumbass reason my school has hijacked a bunch of classes to teach about the topic.

Because brainwashing the up and coming educated of the country on the dogma of the Church of Global Warming is very important to the socialist agenda, of course.

What global warming has to do with criminal justice I have no clue,

You mean you don't remember when the California state attorney general tried to file suit against six automakers for causing global warming? ... or when a UK jury cleared six greenpeace ecoguerrillas of any wrongdoing when they caused 35k Pounds in damage to a coal power plant? Adherence to the tenets of global warming is going to be very much a matter for criminal courts, if some have their way.

but the side effect here is that I am very well versed on both sides of the issue.

Ha.. ha ha ha... pardon me, I have to clean up the water that just came shooting out of my nose.

I would recommend that you educate yourself before going of spouting your biased nonsense.

Ahhh yes, to be back in college and have all the knowledge at one's fingertips, secure in a firm grasp of the truth untainted by real world experience or facts unfiltered by academia.

Additionally, even by your own estimation the matter is out of place in your curriculum. If they inexplicably make you take a course in plumbing while at a cooking school, does that mean you consider yourself an expert in plumbing?

So now the Bible is on equal footing with scientific literature? I knew you were Invader all along.

Most of the so-called "scientific literature" re: global warming is actually more on footing equal with that of Mad Magazine. But it's treated with the reverence of religious text.

Are you sure it's the scientific literature itself or is it the interpretation and commentary by the "the media" and "liberal celebrities" that you're gnashing your eteeth over? Because those are entirely different arenas of thought.

Perhaps a little from column a, and a little from column b. After all, that globulous fraud James Hansen wasn't exactly a media celebrity until he started screaming that the bush administration was trying to squelch him... but then when the struts fell out from under his (snort) "science" he was quickly forgotten and brushed under the rug.

 

[Iaculus]

I am, unfortunately, very well educated on the theory of global warming because for some dumbass reason my school has hijacked a bunch of classes to teach about the topic.

Because brainwashing the up and coming educated of the country on the dogma of the Church of Global Warming is very important to the socialist agenda, of course.

That... is impressively paranoid. Hanlon's Razor, man.

Besides, which 'liberal agenda'? I bet the classical liberals are all for corporate deregulation.

Bear in mind, also, that blame falls on both sides of the fence. I doubt that those oil companies who sponsor anti-global-warming 'research' are any more concerned with scientific integrity and the good of humanity than those few die-hard socialists who see global warming as a convenient excuse for cracking down on those sinful bourgeois corporations.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

GasBandit, I'm curious what you think of Ann Coulter?

 

[GasBandit]

I am, unfortunately, very well educated on the theory of global warming because for some dumbass reason my school has hijacked a bunch of classes to teach about the topic.

Because brainwashing the up and coming educated of the country on the dogma of the Church of Global Warming is very important to the socialist agenda, of course.

That... is impressively paranoid. Hanlon's Razor, man.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're NOT out to get ya. But the creators and caretakers of the educational institutions in this country have been jawdroppingly paranoia-inducing.

In our dreams, people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present eduction conventions of intellectual and character education fade from their minds, and, unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk. We shall not try to make these people, or any of their children, into philosophers, or men of science. We have not to raise up from them authors, educators, poets or men of letters. We shall not search for great artists, painters, musicians nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen – of whom we have an ample supply. The task is simple. We will organize children and teach them in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way.
– John D. Rockefeller General Education Board (1906)

That erroneous assumption is to the effect that the aim of public education is to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence, and so make them fit to discharge the duties of citizenship in an enlightened and independent manner. Nothing could be further from the truth. The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all, it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States, whatever the pretensions of politicians, pedagogues and other such mountebanks, and that is its aim everywhere else.
– H.L. Mencken

We must create out of the younger generation a generation of Communists. We must turn children, who can be shaped like wax, into real, good Communists.... We must remove the children from the crude influence of their families. We must take them over and, to speak frankly, nationalize them. From the first days of their lives they will be under the healthy influence of Communist children's nurseries and schools. There they will grow up to be real Communists.
– Communist Party Education Workers Congress (1918)

Schools have not necessarily much to do with education... they are mainly institutions of control, where basic habits must be inculcated in the young. Education is quite different and has little place in school.
– Winston Churchill

Besides, which 'liberal agenda'? I bet the classical liberals are all for corporate deregulation.

The one everybody knows we're talking about, the contemporary definition. Conservative doesn't mean "wanting to keep the status quo" anymore either.

Bear in mind, also, that blame falls on both sides of the fence. I doubt that those oil companies who sponsor anti-global-warming 'research' are any more concerned with scientific integrity and the good of humanity than those few die-hard socialists who see global warming as a convenient excuse for cracking down on those sinful bourgeois corporations.

You undoubtedly have a point, but if one side is cheating, why not the other?

GasBandit, I'm curious what you think of Ann Coulter?

I think she's all an act.

 

[makare]

Global Warming is the religion of the nonreligious. It has its canon, it has its preachers, and it has its devoted, blinkered followers.
You obviously do not understand what a religion is. Do you have any understanding of anything?

Because brainwashing the up and coming educated of the country on the dogma of the Church of Global Warming is very important to the socialist agenda, of course.
Liberals wahhh brainwashing wahhh socialist wahhh wahh wahh wahh


You mean you don't remember when the California state attorney general tried to file suit against six automakers for causing global warming? ... or when a UK jury cleared six greenpeace ecoguerrillas of any wrongdoing when they caused 35k Pounds in damage to a coal power plant? Adherence to the tenets of global warming is going to be very much a matter for criminal courts, if some have their way.

It still doesn't have anything to do with the study of criminal justice especially research methods which is one of the classes I am taking.

Ha.. ha ha ha... pardon me, I have to clean up the water that just came shooting out of my nose.
You have yet to prove you have any functioning understanding of global warming beyond the liberals wahh part. But even that is suspect.

Ahhh yes, to be back in college and have all the knowledge at one's fingertips, secure in a firm grasp of the truth untainted by real world experience or facts unfiltered by academia.

Oh yes if only I got my information from biased blogs and nonsense journalism, I could be as wise as you.

Additionally, even by your own estimation the matter is out of place in your curriculum. If they inexplicably make you take a course in plumbing while at a cooking school, does that mean you consider yourself an expert in plumbing?

Fuck yeah it would, I am an excellent student and if I had to take that class on plumbing I wouldn't stop until I was an expert at it. That is the kind of person I am. I learn about things from all sides on my own time. Learning... the value of which you obviously know NOTHING. Whining, bitching and moaning you do excel at though. Good for you.

And I really find it ironic that after a thousand conversations where you nag about someone not making an actual point and supporting it with facts, you turn around and pull this shit. What a joke.

 

[GasBandit]

Boy, did you make that nearly illegible.

You obviously do not understand what a religion is. Do you have any understanding of anything?

More'n you do, apparently.

It still doesn't have anything to do with the study of criminal justice especially research methods which is one of the classes I am taking.

Of course it doesn't. It's silly. The whole thing is silly. I keep forgetting that irony, wit, and sarcasm apparently haven't found purchase upon you any more recently than your last amorous encounter. I'll have to refrain from it from now on, boring as that may be.

You have yet to prove you have any functioning understanding of global warming beyond the liberals wahh part. But even that is suspect.

And neither have you, for that matter. And the burden of refutation is upon you. But that's how you've always operated.. drive-by "you're full of shit" posts and then when somebody points out you actually haven't made a counter-argument, you go off and sulk.

Oh yes if only I got my information from biased blogs and nonsense journalism, I could be as wise as you.

People tend to complain when you put real world knowledge in your bibliography, as it doesn't have an ISBN and you can't link it in UBB code.

Additionally, even by your own estimation the matter is out of place in your curriculum. If they inexplicably make you take a course in plumbing while at a cooking school, does that mean you consider yourself an expert in plumbing?

Fuck yeah it would,

The prosecution rests, your honor.

 

[Krisken]

I just want to be sure I have this straight.

If I make a point with no basis in fact and link to a website that agrees with that view point, so long as no one else disproves what I say to my satisfaction, they're stupid doodie heads?

That's awesome. I'm using that the next time I'm in an argument.

 

[GasBandit]

I just want to be sure I have this straight.

If I make a point with no basis in fact and link to a website that agrees with that view point, so long as no one else disproves what I say to my satisfaction, they're stupid doodie heads?

That's awesome. I'm using that the next time I'm in an argument.

It's a special method I often use on makare and garhent. I used to go through the effort with her, but quickly found it wasted where makare is concerned. Even when I would provide links to the rest of the support for the assertion, which longtime readers or those who keep up on current political events didn't need in the first place, she still didn't provide cognizant rebuttal other than ad hominem. So now I just needle her along and wait to see if she actually ever shows any initiative in the debate before I take the time any more. It never materializes.

 

Not meaning to scoop you, Gas, but there's now this little nugget.

The airlines want to be bailed out.

 

[North_Ranger]

I just want to be sure I have this straight.

If I make a point with no basis in fact and link to a website that agrees with that view point, so long as no one else disproves what I say to my satisfaction, they're stupid doodie heads?

That's awesome. I'm using that the next time I'm in an argument.

It's a special method I often use on makare and garhent. I used to go through the effort with her, but quickly found it wasted where makare is concerned. Even when I would provide links to the rest of the support for the assertion, which longtime readers or those who keep up on current political events didn't need in the first place, she still didn't provide cognizant rebuttal other than ad hominem. So now I just needle her along and wait to see if she actually ever shows any initiative in the debate before I take the time any more. It never materializes.

Here's a pot.

And here's a kettle.

Go nuts.

 

[Espy]

Not meaning to scoop you, Gas, but there's now this little nugget.

The airlines want to be bailed out.

Of course they do.
Anyone here take a class or two about airlines? We need an expert on this shit STAT.

 

[Jake]

 

[Covar]

Personal views aside, this argument goes to GasBandit due to his ability to properly use BBCode.

 

[makare]

Gas, you have yet to show that you understand what the theory of global warming is and what it would mean on a global scale.
Now I want you to stop whining, put down the anarchist reader's digest, and prove to me that you actually understand it. You also have to do it without mentioning the word's liberal and socialist. If you actually accomplish this, I will give you an ecookie.
(I don't actually have an ecookie but I think I am pretty safe here.)

I realized that you did not understand global warming or the global environment crisis back on half pixel when you proved to me that you do not even know what pollution is. There is no way you can understand the theory of global warming without understanding what pollution is. I dare you to prove me wrong.


Oh and if you want to skip the meaningless history lesson, pointless quotes, and blatantly biased generalizations... that would be cool.

 

[Krisken]

Personal views aside, this argument goes to GasBandit due to his ability to properly use BBCode.

Yay, arbitrary judging FTW!

 

[Covar]

Personal views aside, this argument goes to GasBandit due to his ability to properly use BBCode.

Yay, arbitrary judging FTW!

Hey, I know my bias.

 

[Krisken]

Personal views aside, this argument goes to GasBandit due to his ability to properly use BBCode.

Yay, arbitrary judging FTW!

Hey, I know my bias.

Me too, sir, me too.

 

[makare]

Personal views aside, this argument goes to GasBandit due to his ability to properly use BBCode.

Yay, arbitrary judging FTW!

Hey, I know my bias.

Me too, sir, me too.

You have a lupus bias.

 

[SpecialKO]

Here's a pot.
And here's a kettle.
Go nuts.

Don't you actually mean, here's the pot:

And here's the ketel:

 

[North_Ranger]

Sorry, TK... I only drink Finnish vodkas.

 

[GasBandit]

Nnnnnnyoink. Mine now.

Gas, you have yet to show that you understand what the theory of global warming is and what it would mean on a global scale.
Now I want you to stop whining, put down the anarchist reader's digest, and prove to me that you actually understand it. You also have to do it without mentioning the word's liberal and socialist. If you actually accomplish this, I will give you an ecookie.
(I don't actually have an ecookie but I think I am pretty safe here.)

I realized that you did not understand global warming or the global environment crisis back on half pixel when you proved to me that you do not even know what pollution is. There is no way you can understand the theory of global warming without understanding what pollution is. I dare you to prove me wrong.


Oh and if you want to skip the meaningless history lesson, pointless quotes, and blatantly biased generalizations... that would be cool.

So what you're saying is you want me to prove something without discussing its origins, providing corroborating opinions from qualified experts, or making any sort of explanatory summarizations? Snort.

All I ever said about pollution was that the witch hunt demonizing CO2 as a "pollutant" was stupid. Mercury, sulphur or carbon monoxide... this is pollution. But the persecution of the production of CO2 is purely political and ultimately asinine, in the same vein as the previous decade's bad-science freon panic.

 

[makare]

Gas, you have yet to show that you understand what the theory of global warming is and what it would mean on a global scale.
Now I want you to stop whining, put down the anarchist reader's digest, and prove to me that you actually understand it. You also have to do it without mentioning the word's liberal and socialist. If you actually accomplish this, I will give you an ecookie.
(I don't actually have an ecookie but I think I am pretty safe here.)

I realized that you did not understand global warming or the global environment crisis back on half pixel when you proved to me that you do not even know what pollution is. There is no way you can understand the theory of global warming without understanding what pollution is. I dare you to prove me wrong.


Oh and if you want to skip the meaningless history lesson, pointless quotes, and blatantly biased generalizations... that would be cool.

So what you're saying is you want me to prove something without discussing its origins, providing corroborating opinions from qualified experts, or making any sort of explanatory summarizations? Snort.

I said no pointless quotes which are the kind you most often use. You are more than welcome to reference experts, if you can.

And the fact that you equate "blatantly biased generalizations" with "explanatory summarizations" is more a condemnation of your ability to argue this topic than anything I could have come up with.

No ecookie for you.

All I ever said about pollution was that the witch hunt demonizing CO2 as a "pollutant" was stupid. Mercury, sulphur or carbon monoxide... this is pollution. But the persecution of the production of CO2 is purely political and ultimately asinine, in the same vein as the previous decade's bad-science freon panic.

CO2 is a chemical that affects the atmosphere. Increasing the amount of CO2 beyond the level the environment can safely deal with would be pollution. Especially the CO2 produced by manmade technological means. Denying that increased CO2 in the environment constitutes pollution would be just as politically charged as those that blame it for the increased temperature.

 

[Amy old]

gah! who unstickied this thread?

maaan

 

[GasBandit]

CO2 is a chemical that affects the atmosphere. Increasing the amount of CO2 beyond the level the environment can safely deal with would be pollution. Especially the CO2 produced by manmade technological means. Denying that increased CO2 in the environment constitutes pollution would be just as politically charged as those that blame it for the increased temperature.

EVERYTHING is a "chemical that affects the atmosphere," if we're going by the scale you're talking. That makes oxygen a pollutant too. This is where the argument turns asinine. Asserting that increased CO2 in the environment constitutes pollution is unsound. Correlation does not equal causation, and even the correlation here is spotty. Take for example the end of the previous Ice Age... deep sea temperatures started rising a millenia before CO2 levels started rising. This makes it sound more like the carbon dioxide is more a symptom of something else than the primary cause of warming, hmm? A number of other possible explanations have also been advanced, ranging from albedo to increased solar output (remember the "global warming on mars" thing?)... and it also doesn't help that the global warming movement has been self destructing under loads of false (if not falsified) data.

Oh, and remember, Planeteers, the Al Gore Hockeystick temperature graph has been debunked, too.

This is the part where makare comes back with an ad hominem and doesn't post any links.

 

[makare]

CO2 is a chemical that affects the atmosphere. Increasing the amount of CO2 beyond the level the environment can safely deal with would be pollution. Especially the CO2 produced by manmade technological means. Denying that increased CO2 in the environment constitutes pollution would be just as politically charged as those that blame it for the increased temperature.

EVERYTHING is a "chemical that affects the atmosphere," if we're going by the scale you're talking. That makes oxygen a pollutant too. This is where the argument turns asinine. Asserting that increased CO2 in the environment constitutes pollution is unsound. Correlation does not equal causation, and even the correlation here is spotty. Take for example the end of the previous Ice Age... deep sea temperatures started rising a millenia before CO2 levels started rising. This makes it sound more like the carbon dioxide is more a symptom of something else than the primary cause of warming, hmm? A number of other possible explanations have also been advanced, ranging from albedo to increased solar output (remember the "global warming on mars" thing?)... and it also doesn't help that the global warming movement has been self destructing under loads of false (if not falsified) data.

Oh, and remember, Planeteers, the Al Gore Hockeystick temperature graph has been debunked, too.

This is the part where makare comes back with an ad hominem and doesn't post any links.

Where did I say that carbon dioxide affects temperature? It is still a pollutant! If I go out and poor a bunch of vitamin c into the river, vitamin c will be the pollutant. What are you talking about?? Say I am losing the argument according to your "rules" but my god you are the most aggravating person I have ever dealt with. You are not even trying to understand what I am saying. And then you act like I am the one who is failing to make logical points. It is really annoying. Everything with you is one long nonsequitur.

And when are you going to explain your understanding of the theory of global warming? You do not need to bitch about or address your opinion of the theory in order to prove that you understand it. Why is this so difficult?

 

[Espy]

gah! who unstickied this thread?

maaan

Thats what I said.
Gas told me to bookmark it.
But you know what? Screw that. I don't want to.

 

[GasBandit]

I already said this part.

EVERYTHING is a "chemical that affects the atmosphere," if we're going by the scale you're talking. That makes oxygen a pollutant too. This is where the argument turns asinine.

My definition of pollutant is something that causes harm or damage in reasonably supplied amounts. Apparently your definition is the entire known universe.

Why is this so difficult?

Because you're so very terrible at it.

 

gah! who unstickied this thread?

maaan

Thats what I said.
Gas told me to bookmark it.
But you know what? Screw that. I don't want to.

I unstickied it to get through the clutter at the top.

 

[Espy]

gah! who unstickied this thread?

maaan

Thats what I said.
Gas told me to bookmark it.
But you know what? Screw that. I don't want to.

I unstickied it because I hate Gas Bandit.

Damn. Thats cold Ed.

 

[North_Ranger]

Damn. Thats cold Ed.

Oh, don't worry. This thread always plops up to the surface, like a... well, best not get carried away with the simile.

 

[makare]

I already said this part.

EVERYTHING is a "chemical that affects the atmosphere," if we're going by the scale you're talking. That makes oxygen a pollutant too. This is where the argument turns asinine.

My definition of pollutant is something that causes harm or damage in reasonably supplied amounts. Apparently your definition is the entire known universe.

Why is this so difficult?

Because you're so very terrible at it.

I AM terrible at following your nonsense. You still haven't answered my question. Which means that you still have not proven that you understand enough about global warming to know that, according to the theory, the world can be warmed and it still be cold in Siberia. So. You Fail. I guess.

If you weren't going to explain yourself you should have just said you were joking about the Siberia thing. Even if it had been a lie at least it would have saved time.

 

[Espy]

Damn. Thats cold Ed.

Oh, don't worry. This thread always plops up to the surface, like a... well, best not get carried away with the simile.

Yo mamma?

 

[North_Ranger]

Damn. Thats cold Ed.

Oh, don't worry. This thread always plops up to the surface, like a... well, best not get carried away with the simile.

Yo mamma?

Um... How does your mother plop up to the surface?

 

[GasBandit]

I AM terrible at following your nonsense. You still haven't answered my question. Which means that you still have not proven that you understand enough about global warming to know that, according to the theory, the world can be warmed and it still be cold in Siberia. So. You Fail. I guess.

If you weren't going to explain yourself you should have just said you were joking about the Siberia thing. Even if it had been a lie at least it would have saved time.

Well, congratulations on abandoning the "pollutant" line of attack, I suppose. It was after all just making you look even sillier. And frankly, the fact that you think the world IS warmed just goes to show you also didn't follow the links I provided earlier, one of which showed that the climate has actually been cooling since 2002, and another of which showed that much of the "warming" temperature data was garbage. I don't feel the need to credential myself to a cooking-school plumbing major who gets everything wrong in the first place, and doesn't even bring an argument to the table in any case.