CLIMATE MCCARTHYISM
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 14, 2025 10:12
VIEWED: 8176
PAGE 6 of 7
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
No, oil spills are unintended - though completely calculable - consequences. Just like fried birds. It depends what you're willing to tolerate.
So, how ya' doin' coming up with a NUMBER? That thing you need in order to ANSWER THE QUESTION - rather than merely random trolling. Or is that claim that you answered just another quotable RapFact™ in a long string of them?
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
If those birds were being shot instead of being burned, raptard and the rest of his right-wing fucktard buddies would be yelling "FREE-DUMB!" as loud as they could.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by ElvisChrist:
If those birds were being shot instead of being burned, raptard and the rest of his right-wing fucktard buddies would be yelling "FREE-DUMB!" as loud as they could.
Yep. You nailed us.
Now go tell that Lib Dem scientist who was sacked that he should stop whining and fall in line w/ the collective.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by ElvisChrist:Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Why don't you ask PETA or The Sierra Club what that number should be.
Because they didn't come here and post that solar energy is causing "senseless loss of life." You did.
Show us where I said that, please. This thread wasn't about that topic.
Quote:
And when I asked for a specific number, you ran away like the fucking cunt we all know you to be.
Because it was and is a ridiculous, straw man of a question.
But keep spouting profanities and insults like the foul mouthed teenager we all know YOU to be.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
... has been fired by a progressive think tank ...
You mean a private entity exercised its prerogative to decide who should work for them and who shouldn't??? WHAT HORROR!
Meanwhile, you are all OK with private entities telling women they can't be insured to receive a legal medication.
Your boundless hypocrisy is on display - yet again. No wonder we all know you to be a crapturd.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Originally posted by ElvisChrist:Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Why don't you ask PETA or The Sierra Club what that number should be.
Because they didn't come here and post that solar energy is causing "senseless loss of life." You did.
Show us where I said that, please. This thread wasn't about that topic.
"What does eating meat have to do w/ the 100% senseless loss of life via wind turbines and solar collectors ?"
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=58522
Are you suggesting that your point of view and your facts change depending on which thread they're posted in?
In addition to not being able to own a mistake, are you also unable to apply concepts broadly across different areas of thought?
I'm learning so much about your ridiculously narrow and restricted mind and how it tries to function!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
The analogy just doesn't work. Scientific communities have the right to employ people based on their expertise, and someone who is a climate change denier is someone who rejects evidence.
I kept waiting for you to make a point, to make a logical explanation of your stated viewpoint.
But here you expose your fallacy, your inability to discern the foundation of logic.
You did have me wondering where you were going - curious to see how your view and understanding of McCarthy would differ from those of Americans of many stripes.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Are you suggesting that your point of view and your facts change depending on which thread they're posted in?
Yeah, that's exactly NOT what I'm saying.
But you can't carry on a simple , straight forward discussion w/ our resorting to antics of cherry picking things others have said in entirely different threads, so as to twist their words out of context.
Each thread is like a different conversation. If you're gonna take quotes and comments OUT OF CONTEXT from other threads, then there's no point in trying to converse w/ you, at all.
This only goes to show how thin your position is, that you can't debate the issue, and have to resort to juvenile tactics of migrating remarks from entirely different threads ( hell, why not snatch something from another forum entirely, as y'all love to stalk me across the internet anyways ) then you've already lost.
But we already knew that, didn't we ?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
The analogy just doesn't work. Scientific communities have the right to employ people based on their expertise, and someone who is a climate change denier is someone who rejects evidence.
I kept waiting for you to make a point, to make a logical explanation of your stated viewpoint.
But here you expose your fallacy, your inability to discern the foundation of logic.
You did have me wondering where you were going - curious to see how your view and understanding of McCarthy would differ from those of Americans of many stripes.
Uh, my point was that it's not accurate to compare it to McCarthyism/
And I suspect that you and Rap and a few others would have strongly supported McCarthy back in the day.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
But it IS accurate , and by trying to claim otherwise, you ignore the intolerance in science of those who dissent from a favored or " official " point of view.
So intolerant, they'll sack one of their own, a bonafide Left winger. Kinda like how Isis terrorists will kill fellow Muslims who don't fall in line with their narrow views.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
But it IS accurate , and by trying to claim otherwise, you ignore the intolerance in science of those who dissent from a favored or " official " point of view.
So intolerant, they'll sack one of their own, a bonafide Left winger. Kinda like how Isis terrorists will kill fellow Muslims who don't fall in line with their narrow views.
As pointed out, lots of professions wont tolerate someone whose beliefs contradict scientific evidence. For example, a doctor who didnt believe in blood transfusions would probably struggle to find work in a hospital.
Also as pointed out, organisations generally have the right to fire employees whose beliefs contradict organisations ethos and values.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME