The Rise of the Irrational Argument Lobby

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 2:39 am

See now when anti environment fools start spouting about how Carbon Credits is a money making scam I just shake my head.

Carbon trading schemes are the baby of the coal industry and other groups OPPOSED to real reform on carbon emissions.

Seriously the god damn anti environment lobby forces a crappy compromise they can make a quick buck off on the side, then they send their own scammed "astroturf root" rubes like Tzor out there to criticize their opponents for being forced into the crappy compromise.

It's so stupid it hurts. But then that's Tzor for you. All the critical and debating skills of a dull plank of wood.

K · Post by K » Sat Nov 28, 2009 3:58 am

Thanks Tzor. Those links are priceless.

My point has been given more evidence: irrational argument is being given the weight of rational argument. Facts are thrown in that have no relation to each other and things are stated as facts that are simply untrue (I especially love the first link with picture of the series of arrows pointing to reasons behind the idea climate change. That shit is high comedy in its incoherence and defiance any rational way to prove an argument.)

Since I read yours, you should read that paper on Fascism someone posted in this thread. I'd be curious to hear your response; it really opened my eyes on the conservative movement.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 7:47 am

Yeah, this one is priceless:

1974 UK election? What the fucking hell? That is Tzor's argument? Seriously?

That link goes on about how it was an obscure curiosity in the 1880s. What greenhouse breakthrough are they talking about there? The Greenhouse Effect was postulated by physical-chemistry first principles in 1824, a working small-scale model was created in 1858, and it was quantitatively measured in 1896. This is all information you can get off wikipedia in twenty seconds. The 1880s don't have anything to do with anything.

Margaret Thatcher called for a reduction in greenhouse gases in 1988, several years after West Germany had already passed legislation to that effect in order to pacify their own growing Green Party (which had recently taken seats for the first time). The conspiracy is not only wildly implausible, it's flat a-historical. The dates do not match up to anything, it's just a rant.

-Username17

erik · Post by **erik** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 8:14 am

Tzor, this is why we have peer reviews of experts in fields who check each others' work without any incentives to approve or disapprove publication of studies beyond whether they properly done and worth hearing about.

So that non-crazy stuff isn't found in science journals. If a study made it in a journal, it is because people without an agenda found that the studies were done in a repeatable, verifiable and predictable manner. The notion that the entire scientific community (which is not an organized community per se, just people who agree to follow the same rules of inquiry, since they fucking work) is some sort of profit-driven cabal that in an organized fashion spreads lies for money... that's fucking batshit insane.

To believe that kind of ridiculous bullshit you have to have absolutely no understanding about how scientific studies are done, reviewed, and published. It blows my ever-fuckin mind.

Go meet some research grad students or PhDs. Go to a fuckin library and check out some science journals (with primary sources, not Discover Magazine or Popular Science). These are real people doing real investigations into how things work in this world. They are not some united front of dark cultists out to reap rewards by selling out to the clean energy industry (which has fucking orders of magnitude less money than traditional sources).

Tzor, please don't say another word about science in general, scientists, the scientific method, or any scientific theories until you have some barest inkling of what you are talking about. It pisses me off when such retarded lies are spread. I'd hate to murder everyone on the planet in a fit of rage. I cannot imagine the mess that would make.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 10:32 am

Tzor wrote:But here is an interesting question: Why doesn't "global warming research grant dollars" get me a good link within 6 pages?

On the off chance that this is intended to be a sincere question as opposed to a completely insane tirade: it's because there are no global warming research grants. No one, anywhere is getting a dime to research "global warming." People are getting money to research "the climate" and "paleoclimate modeling techniques" and "tree ring samples" and "ice flow cores" and "atmospheric gas contents" and "ocean temperature shifts" and such, but no one is researching "global warming."

Global Warming is the conclusion, the research is simply measuring the temperatures of he day and reconstructing a more and more accurate model of temperatures of the past. So you have to go way down into the depths of google hits to find anyone talking about it. In the same way that when you search for "unicorn research grants" you only get one hit. The fact that you can find anyone talking about "Global Warming Research Grants" is simply because there is a very vocal, and very disingenuous section of the denialosphere that claims to really believe in all this crazy bullshit you've been spouting.

But yes, while there are people who get money to "disprove global warming" there actually aren't any people anywhere who get a single penny to "prove global warming." The proof of global warming actually comes directly from entirely neutral climate research. Global warming is a fact, and people who study the climate neutrally are all able to see that.

-Username17

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 1:01 pm

At least they had the sense to blame it on Thatcher. Let's face it, we could believe anything that involves her screwing people over.

clikml wrote:I'd hate to murder everyone on the planet in a fit of rage. I cannot imagine the mess that would make.

Tzor, in the interests of achieving my lifetime ambition, please keep up the good work. I totally want clikml to murder everyone on the planet in a fit of rage.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 2:51 pm

Kaelik wrote:And now Tzor is claiming that Google is manipulating it's searches to bury "THE TRUTH!" Is there no depth to which you won't sink Tzor?

No, I’m neither that stupid nor that paranoid. But I am pointing out that there is a global effort not to mention how much money is being spent on Global Warming research. Your typical high level nuclear physicist would be practically giddy at the monies being funneled into the latest high energy collider. Not with Global Warming; they would rather not admit how much money they are making because they know they are pulling off the greatest con artist job in the history of mankind.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 3:01 pm

clikml wrote:Tzor, this is why we have peer reviews of experts in fields who check each others' work without any incentives to approve or disapprove publication of studies beyond whether they properly done and worth hearing about.

Have you been paying attention? That is one of the very problems that these emails have revealed, a practical conspiracy to “redefine” the peer review process for Global Warming research so that all their articles get in and anyone with an opposing viewpoint doesn’t. That’s not peer review by any stretch of the scientific definition.

Furthermore, the whole notion of peer review being some divine imprimatur is scientific bullshit. Science must be proved by the whole world forever and ever, not by finding a select group of close friends who approve each other’s papers. No one ever said, “Well I guess this Einstein chap got a proper peer review we never need to test his theory ever again.” No they keep testing his theory again and again in new and various ways and each time they prove him right again. That is how science is supposed to work; something your closed progressive mind will never understand.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 3:20 pm

Tzor wrote:But I am pointing out that there is a global effort not to mention how much money is being spent on Global Warming research.

There is NO FUCKING MONEY SPENT ON GLOBAL WARMING RESEARCH!

Is that big enough for you? Should I put it in a larger font? What the fuck. No one, anywhere is researching "global warming." There are people who research climate. And their conclusions are that the world is warming. Finis. Done.

There was never a debate between global warming researchers and anti-global warming researchers because there have never been any global warming researchers. There was a debate within the climate research community as to whether global warming was happening. That debate is over, because the data are in and the world has a lot more heat in it now than it did when we started measuring.

Are you starting to get the merest inkling of why your particular charges make no sense?

Tzor wrote:Have you been paying attention? That is one of the very problems that these emails have revealed, a practical conspiracy to “redefine” the peer review process for Global Warming research so that all their articles get in and anyone with an opposing viewpoint doesn’t. That’s not peer review by any stretch of the scientific definition.

Have you been paying attention?

The event in question is the 2003 paper by Soon and Baliunas, where an incredibly bad paper put together by global warming denialists and funded by large business interests purchased their way into publication in Climate Research. Editors of the Journal resigned in protest. If you want, you can read the Actual Publisher's Assessment.

Your conspiracy theories do you no credit. Especially when in this instance, you are very obviously playing along to the actual big conspiracy: Exxon Mobile and the literally billions of dollars it is publicly funneling into undermining science.

-Username17

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 3:29 pm

Kaelik wrote:And now Tzor is claiming that Google is manipulating it's searches to bury "THE TRUTH!" Is there no depth to which you won't sink Tzor?

Google actually admits to doing exactly that, depending on what truth you're looking for.

Anyway, if you haven't figured out yet that Tzor is just a troll, maybe his latest posts will clue you in. It's almost believable that a Catholic/Republican gamer would stay on this board arguing his talking points for years, but the attack on scientists makes it clear. Apparently the religion trolls were getting old hat; now he's decided to personally attack one of TGDMB's bigger demographics.

Kobajagrande · Post by **Kobajagrande** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 3:35 pm

Wow tzor. I have a strong urge to touch you to see if you're real. I mean, a real, live, conspiracy theorist! I always wanted to know what kind of people believe such things, well, now I know.

Oh, man can we please talk about Zion Protocols! I always wanted to do that. Or how about Illuminati! Or trilateral commission! Or masons! I really want to know the truth about Area 51. I mean, THE REAL TRUTH. Tell me about it, please!

TOZ · Post by **TOZ** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:00 pm

I mean, THE REAL TRUTH. Tell me about it, please!

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

Sorry, couldn't resist. That's all I really have to add. Except that conspiracy theories are funny. They tend to ignore the human element. As in, a group that large could never be kept secret, because someone would always spill it.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 11:26 pm

CatharzGodfoot wrote:Anyway, if you haven't figured out yet that Tzor is just a troll, maybe his latest posts will clue you in. It's almost believable that a Catholic/Republican gamer would stay on this board arguing his talking points for years, but the attack on scientists makes it clear.

Excuse me, that's Roman Catholic (Knight of Columbus and Secular Franciscan Order) / Republican / Gamer / Barbershopper who got his Physics (Astrophysics Minor) BS from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute under the presidency of George M. Lowe (the man who went from the distaster of Apollo 1 straight to the moon), with a MA in Computer Science from Hofstra University. As we proclaim at R.P.I. "I ARE A ENGINEER" and keeper of the might Tute Screw which no matter which way you turn it will only go deeper into you.

I only attack faux scientists because they are not worthy.

(Sometimes I do attack godless communist doctors because it's fun.)

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 11:31 pm

TOZ wrote:As in, a group that large could never be kept secret, because someone would always spill it.

That is because it is so not a secret. Do you realize how many scientists tried to sue the United Nations to take their name off of the UN documents that list their names incorrectly as supporting those documents? After decades of inaction they just gave up. The same is true for scientists who research various causes for climate change that are other than CO2 and are labeled crackpots. The same is true for news organizations trying to present a fair and balanced presentation of the issue being labeled as not news organizations in the first place.

No, it’s not secret; it’s institutively obvious to a casual observer!

TavishArtair · Post by **TavishArtair** » Sun Nov 29, 2009 3:16 am

Talking about your age and your educational credits and your other awards...

... does not stop you from being a dumb ass.

TOZ · Post by **TOZ** » Sun Nov 29, 2009 6:18 am

tzor wrote:No, it’s not secret; it’s institutively obvious to a casual observer!

Then it's not a fucking conspiracy, is it? It's just like every other large group of people, like political parties or corporations.

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Sun Nov 29, 2009 7:39 am

tzor wrote:That is because it is so not a secret. Do you realize how many scientists tried to sue the United Nations to take their name off of the UN documents that list their names incorrectly as supporting those documents? After decades of inaction they just gave up. The same is true for scientists who research various causes for climate change that are other than CO2 and are labeled crackpots. The same is true for news organizations trying to present a fair and balanced presentation of the issue being labeled as not news organizations in the first place.

Do you have a source for any of that? I ask because my own search-fu turns up nothing to support these assertions.

erik · Post by **erik** » Sun Nov 29, 2009 7:55 am

Slashdot has an interesting article on the climate change topic with some links.

http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid ... 27/1811253

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sun Nov 29, 2009 2:54 pm

The tirades about how global warming science is all hidden doesn't even wash. Here in the United States, the data (and the precious code) have been available the entire time. The Global Warming Deniers have never once bothered to actually do anything with the information that we Americans have been giving out for free, why are they suddenly flipping out over the fact that some of the data in England is pay-per-view? And if they actually did care this much, why don't they take their millions in Exxon Money and actually pay to view it?

Seriously, if you want to look back through Climatology raw data instead of skimming the abstracts like a sane person, YOU CAN TOTALLY DO THAT.

-Username17

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Sun Nov 29, 2009 3:08 pm

angelfromanotherpin wrote:Do you have a source for any of that? I ask because my own search-fu turns up nothing to support these assertions.

Unfortunately, my internal memory cache is quite small. I recall this from a global warming debate (probably on Gather) about a year and a half ago so I don't have the links.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Sun Nov 29, 2009 3:10 pm

TavishArtair wrote:Talking about your age and your educational credits and your other awards...

... does not stop you from being a dumb ass.

I was merely trying to counter the point that somehow I am anti-science.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sun Nov 29, 2009 3:18 pm

tzor wrote:
angelfromanotherpin wrote:Do you have a source for any of that? I ask because my own search-fu turns up nothing to support these assertions.
Unfortunately, my internal memory cache is quite small. I recall this from a global warming debate (probably on Gather) about a year and a half ago so I don't have the links.

Oh? I can fucking source it for you.

Many scientists are angry at the IPCC for being too lenient on Global Warming Deniers.

Peter Laut wrote:The IPCC is not without responsibility for providing the free ride for solar crusaders. Because the IPCC has never made it clear, that the problem with the widely circulated, infamous figures of 1991 and 1998 ‐ which probably have been the most important persuaders ‐ is not a question of scientific uncertainty and differing opinion, but a case of manipulated data that have nothing to do with reality.Instead of merely describing Svensmark’s contributions as ‘controversial’, some stronger words from the IPCC would have been appropriate. In a language that could be understood by ordinary citizens.

Funny isn't it? You're going on about how some scientists disagree with the IPCC report and are angry at the UN signing off on it in their names. And you miraculously forget to mention or recall that these scientists are angry that the AGW Deniers are given too much credit for their crank science.

Like everything else you've said in this thread, it undermines your credibility.

-Username17

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sun Nov 29, 2009 3:45 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:it undermines your credibility.

...Tzor has credibility? Since when?

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Sun Nov 29, 2009 11:27 pm

Koumei wrote:...Tzor has credibility? Since when?

Of course I have credibility! That's wny I have a 2010 Prius instead of some used broken down vehicle and I don't have to make a living by working at a pirate fast food chain or at a ren faire and ... oh wait, that's cerditability.

The Lunatic Fringe · Post by **The Lunatic Fringe** » Mon Nov 30, 2009 2:28 am

tzor wrote:
Koumei wrote:...Tzor has credibility? Since when?
Of course I have credibility! That's wny I have a 2010 Prius instead of some used broken down vehicle and I don't have to make a living by working at a pirate fast food chain or at a ren faire and ... oh wait, that's cerditability.

Er, I don't know enough about the people of this board to tell, but were you trying to insult Koumei?

Just wondering because you sound like a complete jackass. Even in addition to your bizarre political views.