Here is your f---in' "well regulated militia"
Jul 12, 2016 11:17:25 #
RobertJerl, Well Known Historian and Crackpot: I know I won't be able to ignore your posts for long, but I am going to just let you and the others go at each other for a while since you show no sign of being even the least bit suspicious that your opinion might not be 100% right 100% of the time. Must be a cozy, fuzzy warm feeling to never have any doubts about you own opinions. That way you don't have to think too deeply or really pay attention to any facts that don't fit your view.
Nagy: There is not much to reconsider about huge amounts of carbon dioxide causing the climate to rise. That is incontrovertible fact, moron, just like the Sun being the source of nearly all energy on Earth. Understanding of its exact effects may be moderated over time with sharper understanding, but its basic effects on the climate are not in question, nor that it is being released in alarming amounts by humans, except by morons, like you.
Yes, questioning things is important, but not your kind of questioning. You have decided that a small number of dissenting scientists, most of them paid by the fossil fuel industry, are correct, while all the rest have joined a massive conspiracy to create an alarming fiction. Yes, Professor Jerl, this is world class stupidity.
RobertJerl: And I don't believe that scientists are God, or the Devil, they are human. Some really know their stuff, others not so much; some totally honest, others not - a lot of faked studies have come to light. And some of them are just plain weird.
Nagy: It is an abject distortion to suggest that the majority of studies proving human-induced global warming are either mistaken, or fraudulent. You are well-read... in the works of Murry Salby.
Nagy: There is not much to reconsider about huge amounts of carbon dioxide causing the climate to rise. That is incontrovertible fact, moron, just like the Sun being the source of nearly all energy on Earth. Understanding of its exact effects may be moderated over time with sharper understanding, but its basic effects on the climate are not in question, nor that it is being released in alarming amounts by humans, except by morons, like you.
Yes, questioning things is important, but not your kind of questioning. You have decided that a small number of dissenting scientists, most of them paid by the fossil fuel industry, are correct, while all the rest have joined a massive conspiracy to create an alarming fiction. Yes, Professor Jerl, this is world class stupidity.
RobertJerl: And I don't believe that scientists are God, or the Devil, they are human. Some really know their stuff, others not so much; some totally honest, others not - a lot of faked studies have come to light. And some of them are just plain weird.
Nagy: It is an abject distortion to suggest that the majority of studies proving human-induced global warming are either mistaken, or fraudulent. You are well-read... in the works of Murry Salby.
Jul 12, 2016 11:20:01 #
RobertJerl: The main fault of many is that they cannot admit they might be wrong since their whole career and reputation is tied up so much in what they have been doing and saying.
Nagy: Scientists do not have to admit they are wrong. They compete with one another, and refute each other's theories if they can, or modulate them. You need to learn a new term, Distinguished Professor Jerl: peer-reviewed.
Nagy: Scientists do not have to admit they are wrong. They compete with one another, and refute each other's theories if they can, or modulate them. You need to learn a new term, Distinguished Professor Jerl: peer-reviewed.
Jul 12, 2016 11:22:46 #
robertjerl: One of my strengths is in searching for opinions and data.
Um, it is the peer reviewed part where the cherry picking came out, in at least one case due to a bunch of e-mails exchanged between a couple of the individuals involved being accidentally leaked. Except of course the reviews by others of the same opinions.
Prof X writes a paper "proving" that ZZZ is "fact".
Nine of his fellow believers write reviews saying he is absolutely correct with data straight from God. (Most of them are living and working off grants to study ZZZ with the money coming from the same sources as X's grants.)
One or Two who do not believe ZZZ is "fact" yet and still open to question point out data that X left off or never gathered, or methodology X used instead of another and say more or less "it is still open to question" and we believe that XYZ could be the real "facts". Or maybe even something none of us have come up with yet.
Which ones do you believe?
Nagy: I have seen the light: Distinguished Professor of History, Robert Jerl is the real source on climate science, not the scientists.
Um, it is the peer reviewed part where the cherry picking came out, in at least one case due to a bunch of e-mails exchanged between a couple of the individuals involved being accidentally leaked. Except of course the reviews by others of the same opinions.
Prof X writes a paper "proving" that ZZZ is "fact".
Nine of his fellow believers write reviews saying he is absolutely correct with data straight from God. (Most of them are living and working off grants to study ZZZ with the money coming from the same sources as X's grants.)
One or Two who do not believe ZZZ is "fact" yet and still open to question point out data that X left off or never gathered, or methodology X used instead of another and say more or less "it is still open to question" and we believe that XYZ could be the real "facts". Or maybe even something none of us have come up with yet.
Which ones do you believe?
Nagy: I have seen the light: Distinguished Professor of History, Robert Jerl is the real source on climate science, not the scientists.
Jul 12, 2016 11:25:02 #
Blurryeyed: Still waiting for Peter to tell me about the NASA graphs……
Nagy: I have been away from this site for an extended period of time, busy with some writing that has deadlines. I have been going back to earlier posts to address them, and will get to your mic-dropping post sometime today.
Nagy: I have been away from this site for an extended period of time, busy with some writing that has deadlines. I have been going back to earlier posts to address them, and will get to your mic-dropping post sometime today.
Jul 12, 2016 11:28:36 #
nakkh: A conservative may not smoke but he owns a tobacco farm & advertises cigarettes to kids & denies & lies that smoking is bad for you.
Nagy: Very true, until the proof and public opinion is so irresistible, he has no choice but to capitulate to it. Then he poisons kids in third world countries with those cigarettes.
Nagy: Very true, until the proof and public opinion is so irresistible, he has no choice but to capitulate to it. Then he poisons kids in third world countries with those cigarettes.
Jul 12, 2016 11:31:20 #
Zophman: 480,000 Americans die each year due to diseases caused by smoking (cdc.gov) Why isn't smoking illegal?
Nagy: Please provide credible evidence for that level of mortality from second hand smoke. It seems like abject nonsense to me. Smoking in most public places is illegal, and very few people still smoke today. A very thin minority of people I know have contracted or died of lung cancer. I do not know a single non-smoker who has had lung cancer. I personally knew more than one who has been shot to death, even though the annual carnage by that route is downward from 40,000 a year (dramatically reduced during the Obama era.)
There is a difference between the proven mortality caused by smoking vis a vis firearms. The smokers kill only themselves, while shooters kill themselves, as well as others. Nevertheless, if you are implying that smoking should be illegal, I agree. It is a monstrous form of self abuse, and the industry should be destroyed.
Nagy: Please provide credible evidence for that level of mortality from second hand smoke. It seems like abject nonsense to me. Smoking in most public places is illegal, and very few people still smoke today. A very thin minority of people I know have contracted or died of lung cancer. I do not know a single non-smoker who has had lung cancer. I personally knew more than one who has been shot to death, even though the annual carnage by that route is downward from 40,000 a year (dramatically reduced during the Obama era.)
There is a difference between the proven mortality caused by smoking vis a vis firearms. The smokers kill only themselves, while shooters kill themselves, as well as others. Nevertheless, if you are implying that smoking should be illegal, I agree. It is a monstrous form of self abuse, and the industry should be destroyed.
Jul 12, 2016 11:52:04 #
PNagy wrote:
Zophman: 480,000 Americans die each year due to di... (show quote)
The CDC has published these findings regarding second hand smoke (Google is an amazing tool...you should try it. It's easy!). 41,300 people die each year from second hand smoke. Smokers not only kill themselves but other innocent victims. Yes, in most communities smoking in public places is illegal or at least significantly restricted. So why does the second hand smoke death rate remain? And does your personal experience regarding lung cancer qualify as scientific study? I doubt it. Your premise concerning the proven mortality of fire arms and smoking is without merit as evidenced by studies from numerous organizations including the CDC.
Jul 12, 2016 13:26:51 #
Robertjererl: Nope, I believe the question is still unanswered, but that over all mankind only has limited influence compared to the sun's output and other factors.
Nagy: Limited is a relative term. Human influence over climate is limited compared to the long-term effects of the Sun, and to the catastrophic short-term effects of cosmic collisions, but not so limited that it cannot raise global temperatures a few degrees above what can comfortably sustain life as it currently is. Human behavior can create heat that reduces the qualiti of life to the point where tens of millions, or even billions must perish, or live in poverty. None of that has anything to do with your crackpot beliefs, but with reliable science.
Nagy: Limited is a relative term. Human influence over climate is limited compared to the long-term effects of the Sun, and to the catastrophic short-term effects of cosmic collisions, but not so limited that it cannot raise global temperatures a few degrees above what can comfortably sustain life as it currently is. Human behavior can create heat that reduces the qualiti of life to the point where tens of millions, or even billions must perish, or live in poverty. None of that has anything to do with your crackpot beliefs, but with reliable science.
Jul 12, 2016 13:40:06 #
PNagy wrote:
Robertjererl: Nope, I believe the question is stil... (show quote)
There is now the premise that we may be entering a "mini ice age" (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11733369/Earth-heading-for-mini-ice-age-within-15-years.html) So are we going into "global warming" or "ice age"? And I am curious to learn of your qualifications to claim another person's belief in this highly controversial subject, that is contested by credible science, is, as you say, a "crackpot belief?"
Jul 12, 2016 13:53:42 #
Zophman wrote:
There is now the premise that we may be entering a "mini ice age" (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11733369/Earth-heading-for-mini-ice-age-within-15-years.html) So are we going into "global warming" or "ice age"? And I am curious to learn of your qualifications to claim another person's belief in this highly controversial subject, that is contested by credible science, is, as you say, a "crackpot belief?"
There is no theory about a coming "mini ice age" that is taken seriously by the mainstream scientific community. It is laughed at by any serious and honest climate scientist and by the peer-reviewed scientific community. It is rather interesting, though, that the groupthink of global warming skeptics that make up so much of the conservative population here always show 100% gullibility to believe any and all claims by the deniers while showing 100% skepticism to the mainstream science. Even the fact that most of the denier pseudo-science is funded by the Fossil Fuel lobby doesn't seem to matter to the ignorant morons on the right. They seem to celebrate their anti-science stances in general in many areas.
It is the Religion of Anti-science Skepticism, second only in popularity to the Christian Religion in blind adherence to a dogma. But at least when it comes to Christianity, the followers have been mostly consistent for almost 2000 years with the same material. The Religion of Anti-science Skepticism has no consistently held beliefs or story. It is made up on the fly on a daily basis, with its blind gullible followers willing to grasp onto any and all ever-shifting alternative claims and theories that change by the second, no matter how completely contradictory it might be to what they claimed just seconds ago.
The Holy Scripture of the Religion of Anti-Science Skepticism is produced and published daily from the Fossil Fuel Funded Disinformation Ministries - Heritage Foundation, ClimateDepot, Wattsupwiththat, etc., and immediately copied and pasted and reformatted and bounced around endlessly in the right wing echo chamber and swallowed up whole by the willing and hungry Skepticism Fundamentalist followers, who have long ago chucked the critical thinking part of their brain out the window...
Jul 12, 2016 13:56:10 #
Zophman: The CDC has published these findings regarding second hand smoke (Google is an amazing tool...you should try it. It's easy!).
Nagy: You really got me now, you sarcastic ass. I never heard of Google before you told me about it. Good thing I have a memory many others mistake for a photographic one, because till this moment I could never have looked anything up. You have really opened my eyes, though. I suspect there may also be some information in these things called books.
Zophman: 41,300 people die each year from second hand smoke. Smokers not only kill themselves but other innocent victims. Yes, in most communities smoking in public places is illegal or at least significantly restricted.
Nagy: I understand the official figures, but find them implausible, like serious assertions I have seen before that claim secondhand smoke is deadlier than firsthand. That does not mean I am attempting to nullify scientific data about the subject. I have not read enough on it to verify independently that it is really science, and probably accurate. I would be interested in knowing about how secondhand smoke can be that deadly, except in an unventilated environment where the smokers are severe users. I was hoping you would be willing to explain it.
Zophman: So why does the second hand smoke death rate remain?
Nagy: Apparently it remains because smoking is extremely toxic, but not outlawed everywhere, as I think it should be.
Zophman: And does your personal experience regarding lung cancer qualify as scientific study? I doubt it.
Nagy: No, I never claimed that my personal experience is valid science, or nullifies actual studies. If you reread what I wrote, you may find a disclaimer to that effect. I merely expressed some credulousness. If I thought it was important enough to research this, I would educate myself on the number of remaining smokers, and exactly how they kill those who are just in the same room or house with them. Seems that the toxins emitted from cigarettes, pipes, and cigars should dissipate in the air, at least to a large degree, even if not to the degree I might have guessed.
Zophman: Your premise concerning the proven mortality of fire arms and smoking is without merit as evidenced by studies from numerous organizations including the CDC.
Nagy: What premise is that? I agreed that tobacco use of any kind is a severe abuse that should be outlawed. My conclusion about both guns and tobacco is that they cause great harm without enough good effects to justify either. You seem to agree on the harmful effects of both, but also seem to conclude that neither should be outlawed, or that only cigarette smoking should be, but not firearms. In fact, the harm caused by tobacco has been under legislative assault for a long time. This casts serious doubt on your assertion that its effects are being ignored. Meanwhile the government has done nothing substantial about reducing our firearm deaths.
You seemed to be setting me up to dispute the need to stop the harmful effects of cigarettes, so you could call me hypocrite. When I did not step into your trap you responded as if I had. This is a bit of strawmanism. Apparently your irrational anger is preventing you from making valid observations about what my views are.
Nagy: You really got me now, you sarcastic ass. I never heard of Google before you told me about it. Good thing I have a memory many others mistake for a photographic one, because till this moment I could never have looked anything up. You have really opened my eyes, though. I suspect there may also be some information in these things called books.
Zophman: 41,300 people die each year from second hand smoke. Smokers not only kill themselves but other innocent victims. Yes, in most communities smoking in public places is illegal or at least significantly restricted.
Nagy: I understand the official figures, but find them implausible, like serious assertions I have seen before that claim secondhand smoke is deadlier than firsthand. That does not mean I am attempting to nullify scientific data about the subject. I have not read enough on it to verify independently that it is really science, and probably accurate. I would be interested in knowing about how secondhand smoke can be that deadly, except in an unventilated environment where the smokers are severe users. I was hoping you would be willing to explain it.
Zophman: So why does the second hand smoke death rate remain?
Nagy: Apparently it remains because smoking is extremely toxic, but not outlawed everywhere, as I think it should be.
Zophman: And does your personal experience regarding lung cancer qualify as scientific study? I doubt it.
Nagy: No, I never claimed that my personal experience is valid science, or nullifies actual studies. If you reread what I wrote, you may find a disclaimer to that effect. I merely expressed some credulousness. If I thought it was important enough to research this, I would educate myself on the number of remaining smokers, and exactly how they kill those who are just in the same room or house with them. Seems that the toxins emitted from cigarettes, pipes, and cigars should dissipate in the air, at least to a large degree, even if not to the degree I might have guessed.
Zophman: Your premise concerning the proven mortality of fire arms and smoking is without merit as evidenced by studies from numerous organizations including the CDC.
Nagy: What premise is that? I agreed that tobacco use of any kind is a severe abuse that should be outlawed. My conclusion about both guns and tobacco is that they cause great harm without enough good effects to justify either. You seem to agree on the harmful effects of both, but also seem to conclude that neither should be outlawed, or that only cigarette smoking should be, but not firearms. In fact, the harm caused by tobacco has been under legislative assault for a long time. This casts serious doubt on your assertion that its effects are being ignored. Meanwhile the government has done nothing substantial about reducing our firearm deaths.
You seemed to be setting me up to dispute the need to stop the harmful effects of cigarettes, so you could call me hypocrite. When I did not step into your trap you responded as if I had. This is a bit of strawmanism. Apparently your irrational anger is preventing you from making valid observations about what my views are.
Jul 12, 2016 14:01:28 #
RobertJerl: I also believe than most of the ideas the true believers put out are not the best and have a lot of costs (not just money) that they either haven't looked at or don't care about since they believe those costs will not impact their own lives much at all.*
Nagy: Your beliefs are part of your knee-jerk tendency to support nearly all vicious right wing conclusions. This particular one is part of a corporate pattern of denying severe evils they are perpetrating long after the scientific community has settled the issue. Its only purpose is to extend their abuses for profit until their false science can no longer stand up against the truth. This was the case with the effects of tobacco, acid rain, and the hole in the ozone. You are a mindless shill for the corporate agenda.
Nagy: Your beliefs are part of your knee-jerk tendency to support nearly all vicious right wing conclusions. This particular one is part of a corporate pattern of denying severe evils they are perpetrating long after the scientific community has settled the issue. Its only purpose is to extend their abuses for profit until their false science can no longer stand up against the truth. This was the case with the effects of tobacco, acid rain, and the hole in the ozone. You are a mindless shill for the corporate agenda.
Jul 12, 2016 14:06:07 #
RobertJerl: And of course you and PNagy both believe that your own belief/opinions are the only 100% correct ones. Sound familiar?
Nagy: Why no, Distinguished Professor Jerl, my opinions do not matter at all against the power of your crackpot ideas that defy science, even though you are not a scientist. I can hardly wait till you reveal your next brilliant opinion. Perhaps you will assert that it is the movement of trees that causes the wind. Make sure you do it with appropriate academic gravitas. If you gain enough notoriety, perhaps you and Ben Carson can even host a new television show on science, religion, and corporate infallbility.
Nagy: Why no, Distinguished Professor Jerl, my opinions do not matter at all against the power of your crackpot ideas that defy science, even though you are not a scientist. I can hardly wait till you reveal your next brilliant opinion. Perhaps you will assert that it is the movement of trees that causes the wind. Make sure you do it with appropriate academic gravitas. If you gain enough notoriety, perhaps you and Ben Carson can even host a new television show on science, religion, and corporate infallbility.
Jul 12, 2016 14:07:57 #
RobertJerl: *Once I read a book by a law professor(Univ. of Virginia I think, the book may still be around the house or I may have donated it) discussing how over regulation and poorly designed regulations were doing more harm than good. A couple of his examples I remember:
Nagy: I understand this idea of yours, too. You are saying that regulation is bad; that nonregulation is good. If left alone, industry will serve us all with saintly benevolence.
Nagy: I understand this idea of yours, too. You are saying that regulation is bad; that nonregulation is good. If left alone, industry will serve us all with saintly benevolence.
Jul 12, 2016 14:09:15 #
Nagy: Your beliefs are part of your knee-jerk tendency to support nearly all vicious right wing conclusions. This particular one is part of a corporate pattern of denying severe evils they are perpetrating long after the scientific community has settled the issue. Its only purpose is to extend their abuses for profit until their false science can no longer stand up against the truth. This was the case with the effects of tobacco, acid rain, and the hole in the ozone. You are a mindless shill for the corporate agenda.
Keenan: Exactly. I would just add that I don't think Robert is really aware of the interests he is serving by shilling the disinformation from the Fossil Fuel industry. He probably convinced himself on some level that he is serving some kind of humanitarian cause, however muddled and confused his logic. I would say that, more specifically, he is an unwitting mindless shill for the corporate agenda.
Citibank recently estimated that the total value of fossil fuels - oil, gas, and coal, still under the ground waiting to be "harvested" by industry, is approximately $100 Trillion. The tiny fraction of this amount that they are investing in disinformation and propaganda, estimated to be in the tens of millions every year, and on buying and lobbying politicians in the US, estimated to be almost $200 million per year, has so far produced stupendous returns on their minuscule investment for the industry in helping the world's most powerful and wealthy country stand in the way of serious change, with a majority of the national legislature participating in the stonewalling so that the industry can continue unimpeded making $Trillions yearly. If the Fossil Fuel Interests continue to succeed in stalling any serious efforts to break the catastrophic addiction to their toxic climate destroying products, the full effect of the catastrophe won't be suffered for several generations, as the delayed effects take a few generations, with temperatures continuing to increase for many decades before peaking after significant increases in the concentration of global warming gasses, long after their gullible and dutiful shills like Robert Jerl have passed. One wonders if Robert's grandchildren - who will be suffering the full catastrophic effects from what people like Robert helped bring about - will be burning effigies of their late Grandfather and cursing him for his misguided efforts...
Robert, do you have grandchildren?
Keenan: Exactly. I would just add that I don't think Robert is really aware of the interests he is serving by shilling the disinformation from the Fossil Fuel industry. He probably convinced himself on some level that he is serving some kind of humanitarian cause, however muddled and confused his logic. I would say that, more specifically, he is an unwitting mindless shill for the corporate agenda.
Citibank recently estimated that the total value of fossil fuels - oil, gas, and coal, still under the ground waiting to be "harvested" by industry, is approximately $100 Trillion. The tiny fraction of this amount that they are investing in disinformation and propaganda, estimated to be in the tens of millions every year, and on buying and lobbying politicians in the US, estimated to be almost $200 million per year, has so far produced stupendous returns on their minuscule investment for the industry in helping the world's most powerful and wealthy country stand in the way of serious change, with a majority of the national legislature participating in the stonewalling so that the industry can continue unimpeded making $Trillions yearly. If the Fossil Fuel Interests continue to succeed in stalling any serious efforts to break the catastrophic addiction to their toxic climate destroying products, the full effect of the catastrophe won't be suffered for several generations, as the delayed effects take a few generations, with temperatures continuing to increase for many decades before peaking after significant increases in the concentration of global warming gasses, long after their gullible and dutiful shills like Robert Jerl have passed. One wonders if Robert's grandchildren - who will be suffering the full catastrophic effects from what people like Robert helped bring about - will be burning effigies of their late Grandfather and cursing him for his misguided efforts...
Robert, do you have grandchildren?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.