Libtards on Parade: Alcoholism, Corruption, Murder

[Jim]

 

In short, my point was that science-types make shitty political commentators--Jim, TTK, on so on. Broadly speaking, they're too specialized to see much of the big picture, IMO. What's more, it's why generalists like Ivan are a whole lot more engaging.

 

This is pure BS again trying to spin the GOP talking points. Let's take climate change for instance - rather than say what they mean - "yes, we understand the climate is changing due to human inputs - but we've analyzed this and have decided that we think taking any action on this would cause a major economic effect and would not change the situation much anyway - thus we see a benefit for the US in adhering to fossil fuel based-economy".

 

That's a policy debate. Instead we have GOP senators bring snowballs to the podium and saying climate change is not real - or if it is it has nothing to do with human inputs. From a science standpoint that argument is over. Policy debate is a different thing. The GOP instead chooses science denial.

 

 

[Jim]

Here's a typical GOP attitude played out in a Science and Technology Panel hearing the GOP Rohrabacher attempting to belittle NASA's climate change expert Holdren-

 

Rohrabacher: Do you believe that tornadoes and hurricanes today are more ferocious and more frequent than they were in the past?

 

Holdren: There is no evidence relating to tornadoes. None of all. And I don't know any spokesman for the administration who has said otherwise. With respect to hurricanes, there is some evidence of increased activity in the North Atlantic, but not in other parts of the world. With respect to droughts and floods, there is quite strong evidence that in some regions they are being enhanced by climate change—not caused by [climate change], influenced by climate change.

 

Rohrabacher: "I don't mean to sound pejorative...but they're Weasel words—that in some areas, "globally" there's not more droughts, "globally" there's not more hurricanes and they're not more ferocious. Is that correct?

 

Holdren: If you want to take a global average, the fact is a warmer world is getting wetter, there's more evaporation so there's more precipitation, so on a global average there's unlikely to be more droughts. The question is whether drought-prone regions are suffering increased intensity and duration of droughts, and the answer there is yes.

 

Rohrabacher: [snickering] So we actually have more water and more drought? Okay, thank you very much.

 

So is this ignorance - that the GOP can't seem to grasp the difference between global climate trends and the implications to localized effects - or is it that he needs to disparage science as unreliable to bolster a policy decision to keep backing the fossil fuel masters and not look at alternatives. Likely both.

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I'm so sick of these conservative circlejerks. Call off your lapdog Fairweather! I'm scared!

 

 

ready for the bukake, Oly?

[Fairweather]

I are on top of Ruth right now with my phone and my skis. Will talk to you libturds later.

[Buckaroo]

I are on top of Ruth right now ....

 

Typical conservatard, cheating on his wife and badmouthing Clinton for doing it at the same time. Is this some new kinky kind of sex with skis on? Is Ruth her real name or is that just for the internet?

[olyclimber]

I are on top of Ruth right now with my phone and my skis. Will talk to you libturds later.

 

wow great TR.

[Fairweather]

Sorry, but Mr Science says TRs are for narcissists. Besides, he does stuff like this "every weekend."

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Sorry, but Mr Science says TRs are for narcissists. Besides, he does stuff like this "every weekend."

 

How were the conditions on Ruth? Much scree/talus slogging now? I advised some beginners to head up and mount Ruth as a conditioner and way to check out the Emmons full-frontal.

[Fairweather]

Boots up to the shoulder. Ruth Arm and above was 100% coverage. Skied down from the top Friday at sunset. Superb. Then up to top and down again on Sat morning. A bit heavy. No rocks, no cracks.

[Crux]

 

Just one more Ruthless troll!

 

oh, wait...

[AlpineK]

Here's a classic Fairweather TR

 

[video:youtube]WfGMYdalClU

[genepires]

not my circus...not my monkeys....

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

In short, my point was that science-types make shitty political commentators--Jim, TTK, on so on. Broadly speaking, they're too specialized to see much of the big picture, IMO. What's more, it's why generalists like Ivan are a whole lot more engaging.

 

This is pure BS again trying to spin the GOP talking points. Let's take climate change for instance - rather than say what they mean - "yes, we understand the climate is changing due to human inputs - but we've analyzed this and have decided that we think taking any action on this would cause a major economic effect and would not change the situation much anyway - thus we see a benefit for the US in adhering to fossil fuel based-economy".

 

That's a policy debate. Instead we have GOP senators bring snowballs to the podium and saying climate change is not real - or if it is it has nothing to do with human inputs. From a science standpoint that argument is over. Policy debate is a different thing. The GOP instead chooses science denial.

 

 

You misquoted me - I did not make that statement.

[olyclimber]

The lot of you are full of crap. I'm the only true god, and I bring you fire.

 

[video:youtube]eawL6aJ2nBc

[ivan]

fire you say?!?

[video:youtube]

[Jim]

KK - my mistake - sorry. Must have edited incorrectly the quotes of quotes of quotes - I was responding to this BS.

 

What a strawload of shit, Oly. Trying to portray conservatives as "anti-science" is a tired old tard meme and it's sad to see you participating. Again, it's not science that conservatives and moderates view with disdain, rather, it's the people (mostly liberal dupes who wouldn't know a neutrino from an amoeba) who have turned science into a belief system exactly as you decry. Science is a cornerstone of modernity--but it's not a system under which societies ought to consciously organize. Unharnessed by outside forces (the market, for example) it tends to ignore really great things--like humanity and individualism. Things libtards claim to care about--but really don't.

 

In short, my point was that science-types make shitty political commentators--Jim, TTK, on so on. Broadly speaking, they're too specialized to see much of the big picture, IMO. What's more, it's why generalists like Ivan are a whole lot more engaging.

 

 

[Fairweather]

KK - my mistake - sorry. Must have edited incorrectly the quotes of quotes of quotes - I was responding to this BS.

 

What a strawload of shit, Oly. Trying to portray conservatives as "anti-science" is a tired old tard meme and it's sad to see you participating. Again, it's not science that conservatives and moderates view with disdain, rather, it's the people (mostly liberal dupes who wouldn't know a neutrino from an amoeba) who have turned science into a belief system exactly as you decry. Science is a cornerstone of modernity--but it's not a system under which societies ought to consciously organize. Unharnessed by outside forces (the market, for example) it tends to ignore really great things--like humanity and individualism. Things libtards claim to care about--but really don't.

 

In short, my point was that science-types make shitty political commentators--Jim, TTK, on so on. Broadly speaking, they're too specialized to see much of the big picture, IMO. What's more, it's why generalists like Ivan are a whole lot more engaging.

 

Um, yea, I think I'll stand by this one. Jim's effort to once again steer the topic toward his religion notwithstanding. Now, if you'll kindly excuse him, he's got to catch a big old jetliner. Yet another conference on ocean expansion and acidification, you see. Caused by Republicans and all them other people.

 

[olyclimber]

so you think you make a good political commentator? conceited? yes. trollish? yes. I don't know how that makes you qualified though. I would rather hear from a scientist any day.

 

you purport to know how others really think. how did you gain this incredible insight?

[AlpineK]

I would support Fairweather's immigration to North Korea. Why go after wimpy NW liberals when you can fight on front lines.

[Fairweather]

Uh, by reading the assorted rants, racist jokes, hypocricy, and commentary of libtards here and elsewhere. And, of course, tired excuses for and defenses of their poor behavior from people like you.

[olyclimber]

Got it...pulling it out of your backside. Time after time your statements like "all you liberals are all the same" make it clear that you want to put everyone left of your definition of the center (probably John McCain, lol) in a cattle car and send them to the chambers. You don't seem capable of understanding nuances, based on what you post here. It seems that it's a black and white world to you. That doesn't help your commentary skills I'm afraid.

 

I'm not making excuses or defending any behaviour.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Fairweather]

Sure you are. Not that I give a rats' ass, but when was the last time you called out a black-and-white lefty here? Take a look, man; they're all around you.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Got it...pulling it out of your backside. Time after time your statements like "all you liberals are all the same" make it clear that you want to put everyone left of your definition of the center (probably John McCain, lol)

 

Fucking A dude. Talk about hyperbole.

 

Of course not all liberals are the same. But there are trends and patterns of thought and behavior. Just like for conservatives.

 

FW does make some interesting points and provocative statements. You don't even try to argue them but just go for the insults. Did you even try to check your emotions at the door for a second and *consider* anything he said at all?

 

Scientists: yeah, they're great to talk to - in small doses and about their specific research area and expertise. Beyond that I've found many to be just as flawed and goofy as the rest of humanity. FW makes a good point about Ivan and generalists. Unidimensional people are boring as fuck (to me) and scientists often trend that way. I worked in biotech for over 10 years, and have known a ton of them both there and elsewhere. Oh, and the relatively few conservatives in science can be just as unidimensional and quirky.

 

FW makes a great point about lay people citing science as gospel. Not knowing a neutrino from whatever he said - it's actually pretty typical of Americans in general, not just lefties. It's just the lefties cite science as gospel (w/o understanding it) while many righties prefer denial as a shield for ignorance.

 

Well, back to your thread folks. I'm headed to the Enchantments along with 1000 other people...

[olyclimber]

Ha just pointing out that you don't come off any better than the people you troll day after day here (also trolls). There are all sorts of people here, all over the map politically. Yes, more than half, a majority, are liberal minded. For a while I think we even had an anti-vaxxer...how is that for being anti-science?

 

 

 

[olyclimber]

Got it...pulling it out of your backside. Time after time your statements like "all you liberals are all the same" make it clear that you want to put everyone left of your definition of the center (probably John McCain, lol)

 

Fucking A dude. Talk about hyperbole.

 

Of course not all liberals are the same. But there are trends and patterns of thought and behavior. Just like for conservatives.

 

FW does make some interesting points and provocative statements. You don't even try to argue them but just go for the insults. Did you even try to check your emotions at the door for a second and *consider* anything he said at all?

 

Scientists: yeah, they're great to talk to - in small doses and about their specific research area and expertise. Beyond that I've found many to be just as flawed and goofy as the rest of humanity. FW makes a good point about Ivan and generalists. Unidimensional people are boring as fuck (to me) and scientists often trend that way. I worked in biotech for over 10 years, and have known a ton of them both there and elsewhere. Oh, and the relatively few conservatives in science can be just as unidimensional and quirky.

 

FW makes a great point about lay people citing science as gospel. Not knowing a neutrino from whatever he said - it's actually pretty typical of Americans in general, not just lefties. It's just the lefties cite science as gospel (w/o understanding it) while many righties prefer denial as a shield for ignorance.

 

Well, back to your thread folks. I'm headed to the Enchantments along with 1000 other people...

 

You and FW seem to be cut from the same cloth. Lots of blanket declarations. I get it, it's your little culture war. You claim to know what people understand and what people don't. You've got the "lefty mind" all figured out. I'm not sure how you did it! But clearly you're right. You got it all figured out. Well wait, no you don't...or if you do, your arguments here don't show that.

 

"It's just the lefties cite science as gospel (w/o understanding it) while many righties prefer denial as a shield for ignorance." <-- This is perfect example. You've made this sweeping argument that we're supposed to believe in due to your views? What data are you basing this on? Lefties are all over the map. They are anti-vaxxers, they are anti-GMO. "Righties prefer denial as a shield for ignorance"? Are you talking about the denial of scientific findings? OK, gotcha.

 

Sorry guys, the world doesn't fit into the convenient little containers you've made.