Following an ideology doesn't make something wrong (or right). But refusing to look at evidence, and making your decisions based on obviously flawed information does.
I know you are trying to fall back to your default "I'm just asking questions" BS routine. But you aren't even doing that. You are spitballing and desperately hoping something will stick to the wall. You are out of legitimate ideas and your continued dancing around the wording on your various 'theories' makes you look like the court jester, not the wise sage. Believe what you want, do what you want (within established boundaries), the rest of the planet is going to go try some stuff. We may fail, we may succeed, but we are going to try. You and your merry band of contrarians have made yourselves as irrelevant as the dinosaurs.
I'm not dancing around anything.
Is or is it not the primary ideology for government intervention that all carbon based fuel is evil and must be taxed or regulated in order to continue using it ? Even though we have no real alternatives to it on the table ? We are to cut off our nose to spite our face.
Cheap, reliable energy is the number one requirement for improving life at all levels.
Government intervened on behalf of the CFL. I was and am against that. I have been for LED's since day one and am about 75% of the way there in our home. LED's are the better choice and better solution to our lighting needs. LED's have succeeded in spite of government subsidized competition and they will win out in the end. We will look back and say WTF was the CFL about ?
So I am against government intervention in our basic needs. It gets it wrong over and over again. You want to spend my money on another loser like Solyndra ? I want to pursue reducing our energy demand over changing the source of it. My way will payoff for sure. Your way is chasing rainbows and does not reduce demand. It simply reduces supply, making it more expensive for everyone, which makes it more oppressive at the same time as well.
This sure as hell is about ideology.
Just as the Peak Oil scare was about ideology and not science ...
“So, the global estimates were… ‘simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand’ and according to this statement, were never meant to be considered scientific estimates, despite what they were called, the scientific group that issued them, and how they were used,” Crockford said.
Yet these estimates were in fact represented as settled science and used as a major driver to push for government intervention.
Following an ideology doesn't make something wrong (or right). But refusing to look at evidence, and making your decisions based on obviously flawed information does.
I know you are trying to fall back to your default "I'm just asking questions" BS routine. But you aren't even doing that. You are spitballing and desperately hoping something will stick to the wall. You are out of legitimate ideas and your continued dancing around the wording on your various 'theories' makes you look like the court jester, not the wise sage. Believe what you want, do what you want (within established boundaries), the rest of the planet is going to go try some stuff. We may fail, we may succeed, but we are going to try. You and your merry band of contrarians have made yourselves as irrelevant as the dinosaurs.
“So, the global estimates were… ‘simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand’ and according to this statement, were never meant to be considered scientific estimates, despite what they were called, the scientific group that issued them, and how they were used,” Crockford said.
Yet these estimates were in fact represented as settled science and used as a major driver to push for government intervention.
You know, a dictionary is only one tool a person needs to make any sense of the words we read and use. Since, in this case, "denier" is shorthand for "climate change denier" and you are that, based on the expanded description at the link I shared. "Contrarians pose as skeptics, refusing to accept consensus conclusions in science on the ground that there is still some uncertainty."
Then when is being a skeptic legitimate in its own right ?
Only on subjects other than climate change ?
Or is it dependent on ideology ? Such as only liberals can be skeptical but a conservative can only be a contrarian ?
And for questioning that so called truth, I am a denier of truth ? I would say that those who accept that as the truth are denying science. My understanding of science is that it is never settled; it is an ongoing process with endless questioning and review based on new discoveries.
Tired of explaining it over and over (and over), but still willing to say "no, that's not how it works". Open for review and challenge != never settled.
Denier of the truth ? Truth is a really loaded word in this context and in the application of the discussion of climate.
Just whose truth are we accepting ? In the case of Climate, its the truth that the "science is settled", to quote a well known world leader.
That says to me that the truth is that ... we know all we need to know or will ever need to know in order to take action.
And for questioning that so called truth, I am a denier of truth ? I would say that those who accept that as the truth are denying science. My understanding of science is that it is never settled; it is an ongoing process with endless questioning and review based on new discoveries.
I simply disagree that we know all we need to know upon which the so called truth is established. Yet because of that I am rightly called a denier of truth ?
Love it ...
You know, a dictionary is only one tool a person needs to make any sense of the words we read and use. Since, in this case, "denier" is shorthand for "climate change denier" and you are that, based on the expanded description at the link I shared. "Contrarians pose as skeptics, refusing to accept consensus conclusions in science on the ground that there is still some uncertainty."
A) I don't know why you're pointing out the definition of a common word to Steeler. But then you seem to be saying your use of it is the more "benign" definition 1 when, as you use it, it is clearly understood by all that you mean definition 2 (quoted here). You cannot disparage someone with one definition of a word, then claim another definition when challenged. It's not only disingenuous, it also doesn't make sense when you re-read your posts with definition 1. "You're a denier!" "I am outraged! How can you say such a thing?" "What? I only meant that you're a small French coin."
B) I don't need a benign definition because altho I personally don't think I've used it to describe you, it fits as-is. If you're slicing the definition of "denier" very thinly so that it doesn't apply to you, okay. But I think a broader description fits you fine. I'm also fairly sure you're trying to define your position so that it doesn't click on many of the points in this description of a denier, but so far, for me, it's not setting you apart.
Denier of the truth ? Truth is a really loaded word in this context and in the application of the discussion of climate.
Just whose truth are we accepting ? In the case of Climate, its the truth that the "science is settled", to quote a well known world leader.
That says to me that the truth is that ... we know all we need to know or will ever need to know in order to take action.
And for questioning that so called truth, I am a denier of truth ? I would say that those who accept that as the truth are denying science. My understanding of science is that it is never settled; it is an ongoing process with endless questioning and review based on new discoveries.
I simply disagree that we know all we need to know upon which the so called truth is established. Yet because of that I am rightly called a denier of truth ?
A) Agenda: a plan or goal that guides someone's behavior and that is often kept secret
B) Do you have a benign definition of denier ?
A) I don't know why you're pointing out the definition of a common word to Steeler. But then you seem to be saying your use of it is the more "benign" definition 1 when, as you use it, it is clearly understood by all that you mean definition 2 (quoted here). You cannot disparage someone with one definition of a word, then claim another definition when challenged. It's not only disingenuous, it also doesn't make sense when you re-read your posts with definition 1. "You're a denier!" "I am outraged! How can you say such a thing?" "What? I only meant that you're a small French coin."
B) I don't need a benign definition because altho I personally don't think I've used it to describe you, it fits as-is. If you're slicing the definition of "denier" very thinly so that it doesn't apply to you, okay. But I think a broader description fits you fine. I'm also fairly sure you're trying to define your position so that it doesn't click on many of the points in this description of a denier, but so far, for me, it's not setting you apart.
Seems to me that labeling those who take the opposite position in a debate as having an "agenda" — or being manipulated by those with said agenda — is more akin to using the "most pejorative term possible in a debate." It typically implies the use of deception.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
May 26, 2014 - 8:06am
kurtster wrote:
kurtster wrote:
The narrative is that I and people like me are dismissed in the most pejorative term possible in a debate, a denier. On the subjects I mentioned above, I do not look at the people who disagree with me as deniers. The way that the term denier has evolved, it infers the worst. It brings the attachment of racism, phobiaism of many kinds, narrow thinking, faulty thinking based upon the sources used, and worst of all intolerance of the thought being put forth.
When denier is invoked, it shuts down all reasonable debate and dialogue. This thread isn't for the purpose of denying or calling those who disagree with what I might post or others, deniers. It, in my mind is about pointing out the agenda of those who call it "settled science".
I do not know of anyone who thinks that the climate is not changing. The term denier claims that though and all the other things I previously mentioned. Those who put forth arguments that end in denier are executing an agenda and twisting their "science" to that end. Marx laid out the ground work for social change back when he was just getting started using ecology as the most effective and most durable means to the end.
I would call myself skeptical of the story being told by those who support the cap and trade scenario. Its an excuse to dole out money from slush funds and pour them into losing ideas like Solyndra and raise taxes among other things.
Seems to me that labeling those who take the opposite position in a debate as having an "agenda" — or being manipulated by those with said agenda — is more akin to using the "most pejorative term possible in a debate." It typically implies the use of deception.
So if you're not a "denier," what are you? Does the term somehow not apply to you? I get that you don't want to be lumped in with a bunch of flat earth tinfoil hat chemtrail paranoids but the term really is a blanket term for anyone who sees no reason to worry, or, if they do worry, see no reason to think anything can be done.
kurtster wrote:
The narrative is that I and people like me are dismissed in the most pejorative term possible in a debate, a denier. On the subjects I mentioned above, I do not look at the people who disagree with me as deniers. The way that the term denier has evolved, it infers the worst. It brings the attachment of racism, phobiaism of many kinds, narrow thinking, faulty thinking based upon the sources used, and worst of all intolerance of the thought being put forth.
When denier is invoked, it shuts down all reasonable debate and dialogue. This thread isn't for the purpose of denying or calling those who disagree with what I might post or others, deniers. It, in my mind is about pointing out the agenda of those who call it "settled science".
I do not know of anyone who thinks that the climate is not changing. The term denier claims that though and all the other things I previously mentioned. Those who put forth arguments that end in denier are executing an agenda and twisting their "science" to that end. Marx laid out the ground work for social change back when he was just getting started using ecology as the most effective and most durable means to the end.
I would call myself skeptical of the story being told by those who support the cap and trade scenario. Its an excuse to dole out money from slush funds and pour them into losing ideas like Solyndra and raise taxes among other things.
Its been great, too. Kinda how I hoped it would go.
But backscroll in that thread I linked to. It seems that every other word in there is denier. Pardon the hyperbole, but the usage of the term is overwhelming in there.
So if you're not a "denier," what are you? Does the term somehow not apply to you? I get that you don't want to be lumped in with a bunch of flat earth tinfoil hat chemtrail paranoids but the term really is a blanket term for anyone who sees no reason to worry, or, if they do worry, see no reason to think anything can be done.
If you're slicing the definition of "denier" very thinly so that it doesn't apply to you, okay. But I think a broader description fits you fine. I'm also fairly sure you're trying to define your position so that it doesn't click on many of the points in 
