Yet another zero content post. I guess you're not used to being challenged. Kind of pathetic really.
As a student of science history, I have seen the term "scientific consensus" many many times throughout history. Usually it is followed immediately by something like "and then blah blah happened."
>> your intellectual dishonesty is bad enough without it
Uh, what intellectual dishonesty? Do you dispute my characterization of how the scientific method should work?
You would be better off simply not replying when you have no comeback. By retorting with a zero-content post, you only confirmed that in this battle you are completely unarmed.
It's pretty arrogant to reflexively interpret disagreement with ignorance of the subject. I bet this is a constant issue with you. Of course you may be the exception, but it is hard for me to find a global warming supporter that has anything more than paper-thin knowledge in the form of talking points when I try to discuss it.
Of course arguing with autistic spectrum people is always a trying thing. You people are just so unpleasant in just about every way. And due to AS issues they are unable to understand or care why this is.
My only wish is that the scientific political weapons of the liberal/marxist were subjected to the same sort of scientific method as any other part of science. The fact that you have the reflexive knee-jerk orthodoxy is complete proof that this is not a valid scientific process.
In any valid scientific process, when another scientist points out a possible flaw in your data or conclusions, the reaction is not a demonization process and a concerted group effort to have that person destroyed professionally. The reaction is more like, Hmm, that's interesting. Let me look at this again. A real man of science invites debate and scrutiny; this is because they are either right and welcome the discussion to prove it, or they REALLY want to know if they themselves are in error.
But that is when you are really interested in science, not simply the appearance of science to hide your agenda.
But this is not how you people are, is it? The reaction from people such as yourself is immediate demonization, no different than how the catholic church dealt with Galileo. Your arguments (in the macro sense) are no more provable than the church's was.
That's a good try, but I'm pretty sure that at some point during his presidency, that George * Bush mentioned the existence of the sun. So any issues with solar output can and will be blamed on him.
That's how it works; it's so easy only a child can understand it.
So, what sort of weather cannot be somehow linked to capitalism - whoops, sorry. I mean global warming? I'm try to keep score at home.
As you say, no one bothers to point out the obvious.
As a student of science *history* I can tell you that scientists deserved to be mocked *far* more than they currently are. And if you disagree; please do so in the form of explaining why an entire generation of scientists have to die off before fundamental (game changing) discoveries are accepted as fact.
The answer? Because the scientific community is comprised of human beings and as such display every folly that any other groups of humans have.
Is that bad? Yes, because they are pretty much the only large group out there that self-assures themselves that they are *not* acting in folly and simple animal selfishness. Thus their self-deception compounds itself.
Not that engineers are without their own folly. This short story by Isaac Asimov covers both nicely:
I 100% believe that you were associated with wikipedia (based on what passes as civilized debate over there). I also believe that you were labeled "autistic". I'm sure it continues to happen.
As for the rest of this screed, you *may* be insane or have a personality disorder. You should get that looked at.
I barely got out of High School, had bad grades in english overall. I have very real deficits that keep me from properly observing the more esotaric rules of the written word.
That, and a aphasia event a few years back.
So, you have seen all thirteen of those people deliver a MEMORIZED speech in front of millions of people? A speech that their mortal enemies will be parcing for any malaprops or propagandizable snippets?
If no to the above, crawl back in your hole AC. You are adding NOTHING to the conversation.
That is certainly possible. If true it would be the ultimate way of showing your superiority - getting over on people while they bash you for being stupid.
I think that this should be a new slashdot meme: someone types a post riddled with errors= you must be a MENSA member!
Yeah, I knew someone would do that - but you did it in a more interesting way than usual. If you could see me write without chrome's spellcheck - you'd really have grist for the mill.
And no, I am not a member of MENSA - but getting in would not be a problem. I was able to deduce what they are about from the outside, and it was clearly not worth the effort or money.
It's no different than a muscle head watching himself in the mirror while he does curls with a barbell - pure narcissism.
This is not a dig, but several of the people relating their experiences with MENSA seem to have some real difficulties with spelling, context, syntax, and the lot.
I really mean it when I say that I'm not fucking with you. It's just interesting.
And by the way, maybe this might make some of you self-appointed geniuses understand that many of the people portrayed by the media as idiots - aren't.
That is simply propaganda; and of course some public figures make it easier than others to stick them with that tag. But anyone with a track record of success has intelligence. Denying it because you don't agree with them politically is simply being completely intellectually dishonest.
And while you cannot control what people think or do - you can control your own actions. So, maybe not repeating or reinforcing obviously incorrect things might be something you can do to move public discourse forward.
Because if you are one of the ones out there that like to hold on to the fiction that George W. Bush or Sarah Palin are unintelligent; that is just stupid on the face of it. Arguing that they're stupid because it's an easy way to propagandize people is not helping *anything*.
I remember when W. was running the first time and I had a very intelligent friend (and actual former MENSA member) who believed this hook, line, and sinker.
All it took for me to completely convince him how intellectually dishonest he (and the media) was being was for two weeks to point out every time he misspoke. That's all it takes. Speaking like Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan in public is a inborn talent that VERY few people have. It is NOT simply a function of high intelligence.
And if you are being completely fair about it; for a national level politician, George W. Bush is at least a better than average speaker.
And before you knee-jerk your reply - how many "smart" people do YOU know that could do as well as he did, under the kind of scrutiny and digging for flaws that was going on?