It even gets better. Bitcoinbitcoin113's idol for climate science is Richard Lindzen. On the Atlas Shrugs site, we find this quote from Mr. Lindzen, himself:


Note that bitcoinbitcoin113 originally mentioned Richard Lindzen about a year ago, citing him as the original source of his climate change skepticism. I pointed out that he's a regular speaker for the Heartland Institute, and sold his services to the tobacco industry to claim that smoking shows no correlation with cancer before moving on to taking money from Exxon/Mobil to say things about climate science.

I have said it so many times, and I'll say it again. Show me something that denies climate science, and I'll show you connections to libertarian think tanks, sellout scientists, donations from Exxon/Mobil, deceptive fabricated documents, and bad memes spread by libertarian blogs.

Every fucking time.

And every person who gets on here and toots his horn about how illegitimate climate science is can't ever pull something original or intelligent out of his ass. It's all a bunch of seedy, stupid, second rate shit that can't hold up under any scrutiny.

I must thank all of you deniers (and Google) for making it so easy for me to find fault with the shit you guys post.

Now I know what reputable and unbiased sources the brainwashed are getting their notions that excess CO2 in the atmosphere is not a pollutant. Geez. How stupid of me not to have gone to the one and true source for climate science: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/12/carbon-dioxide-co2-is-not-pollution.html

How laughably predictable.

Sadly, you didn't get it. So instead, you made some silly remark that means nothing. What garbage.

How ridiculous. Ever hear of Owens Lake? Your remarks smack of politically motivated crap which can't distinguish anything outside of a black and white world of all this or all that. See my above post, and combine that with some more intelligent study on the matter. My reference to Owens Lake should help you along the way.

Really? Where did you hear that? Was it your favorite libertarian think tank? Or was it from the Handbook for Global Warming Deniers? Either you're 1) brainwashed by the very propaganda you consume, or you're 2) knowingly spreading disinformation, or 3) you're just not qualified to discuss such matters. Which one?

Ever hear of dust pollution? How about thermal pollution? Light pollution? Noise pollution?

Try this:


Quoted from here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pollutant

I would like an answer to the three options given to you in my first paragraph of this post.


What thing was that? Saying CO2 is a pollutant? Ah, perhaps we need to consider that you're the misinformed one causing harm to your own argument.

Suggestion: stop using your politically motivated agenda to color your knowledge of science. You won't look like such an idiot.

There is a scientific consensus. A consensus is more likely right than wrong in today's age. Not always. but usually.

Please attempt to show some good science by those in opposition to the consensus.

We pollute. Pollution isn't good.

Global warming is happening. Look at the arctic ocean, among other issues.

What does that leave us with? A warming of the planet. An industrial age which pollutes. A lot of falsified science denying climate change. A scientific consensus which in theory could be wrong, but likely isn't.

Wow. You guys are so convincing.

Let me get this straight then: your 5 percent of lying self serving sellout scientists are more likely to be correct than the 95 percent scientific consensus? Is that it?

If there's a chance that the 95 percent are wrong, then obviously there's a bigger chance your 5 percent of sellouts and document falsifiers and people receiving donations from Exxon/Mobil are wrong as well.

What I see is a bunch of libertarians whose political agenda can't handle the reality of climate science, and then must proceed to delude themselves into believing it's all a conspiracy, and thus like to grasp at straws in the dark, and then hope whatever they find will be enough to fool the rest of us into being deluded as well. Ah, the power of propaganda and self delusions!

You guys are the pathetic brainwashed herd that has been heavily influenced by a bunch of garbage out there in the form of bad science and propaganda published by the think tanks. Sad. And doubly sad that as a result, you think the mainstream is the brainwashed.

In one ear and out the other. Stop filtering, and start keeping up with the news, as well as the scientific publications.

Or continue with applying credence to Exxon/Mobil and Richard Landzen. By the way, not only does Landzen speak for the Heartland Institute and Exxon/Mobil, but he was a sellout to the tobacco industry as well, saying there was no correlation between lung cancer and smoking.

He's just like Frederick Seitz. So tell me, is he an expert in both medicine and climate science? Or is he just a sellout?

And by the way, tell me again why documents like the Oregon Petition were created? Could it be that in the absence of real science, the deniers must create falsified documents which solicit the opinion of dentists, in which the document implies those dentists are climate scientists?

Yes, please show me that science doesn't work, but instead something else does.

Oh, and you better get right on reading the 100,000 plus science papers on the subject so that you can make your informed decision about the consensus. Get on it, man! The scientists are out to get you! It's a big conspiracy!  

Because of the title of the thread.

Frederick Seitz, not Ronald Fisher. Discuss Seitz.

There's ample evidence of big business supporting libertarianism. Just look at who funds the libertarian think tanks.

Learn about Frederick Seitz, founder of the George C. Marshall Institute. Which big business do you think paid him to be a 'scientist' and claim there is no relation between cancer and tobacco smoke? Which big business do you think paid him to lead the public to believe there is no consensus regarding global warming?

Who do you think funds the Heartland Institute, which employs James Taylor, legal analyst for property rights, to edit the rag Environment and Climate News? By the way, it sure is hilarious that the editor of such an officious sounding newsletter is actually an analyst for property rights, and not a climate scientist.

Where do you think the money comes from to put out propaganda such as the Oregon Petition?

What institutes do you think appears on several Philip Morris lists of "national allies," including a 1999 "Federal Government Affairs Tobacco Allies Notebook?

Sorry, but I don't keep up with conspiracy theories and speculations about mysterious videos.

I stand behind the entire conversation about ad hominem. It accomplishes nothing to accuse one of using it. It fails to refute anything. It is often ad hominem itself. All it does is call attention to a logical fallacy that is unrelated to the statement being made.

Like this:

Joe's idea stinks to high heaven. Afterall, his father's an idiot.

Bad logic, to be sure. But it makes no difference with regard to the truth of untruth of Joe's idea. The statement about Joe's father is irrelevant. Ad hominem points that out, but nobody cares.

Consider this:

Joe's idea stinks to high heaven. Oh, and by the way, I want a burger for lunch.

So he wants a burger for lunch. Good for him. Are you going to try and point out the untruth of Joe's idea stinking to high heaven by arguing about the speaker's hunger pains? If so, you're only engaging in deflection and nonsense. Instead, you should stick to the topic, which is whether Joe's idea stinks to high heaven or not.

You will accomplish nothing by discussing lunch, Joe's father, or whether the speaker mentioned lunch or Joe's father.

If on the other hand, you verbally insult me personally by engaging in ad hominem, then it might be worth my time to discuss it with you, but not because it has anything to do with the main point of argument, but because, by insulting me, I may wish to insult you back, argue the point of the insult, or plant a fist in your face.

I never told you once, so your use of the word 'again' doesn't make sense. I will now tell you for the first time, since you will continue to imagine motives that suit your world view until I do. I did so to point out a period of time in the past where environmental decimation was not occurring at the rate it does now. Simple, isn't it?


Awesome!


But still, that doesn't mean you're not getting all bent out of shape over a little exposition. But whatever.

Ah, but that isn't really what happened, is it? There was no insult directed at a member of this forum, by another member of this forum, making it personal. Rather, an insinuation was made about a third party by another third party.

I'll let you go on and continue arguing against what you believe are the motives behind the words used in a conversation between two other people. Have fun.

I can't remember.

In the case of this thread, we can't ask Bob the author that question (analogizing to the author of the article in the first post). We can ask ourselves the inverse question (why is George's plan not ridiculous) and discuss it. But flinging around accusations of ad hominem does not answer that question.

I don't agree. There is little to be gained by promoting excessive growth which in turn causes a reduction in useful information. The greatest potential for useful information lies within the planet's biodiversity and environmental complexity, which is inexorably being destroyed at ever accelerating rates. These resources go through non-reversible transformations which reduce their value for temporary usage. In other words, a humanity induced great extinction. What we gain through such processes are a new kind of information: reality TV and status updates. In other words, we're trading precious and non-renewable resources for an information glut of garbage in the cloud.

Did you read the bottom half of my statement to you? If so, then you'll understand that only the last suggestion in double quotes is applicable. The one that says: "I think his proposal is not ridiculous because it actually has the following merits..."

I never said someone said such a thing. If you wish to debate me, then try to debate what I'm saying.