Thomas Lindaman wrote:
Our good friend, the Leftist Blogger who hates me and yet can't stop talking to me (oh, and lying about me),
Ah, yes. The old "flip it around" right-wing technique.
Lindaman, you're a PROVEN LIAR.
1. You lied about me not knowing the definition of "Debunk."
2. You lied about me claiming "97% of scientists" say AGW is a reality, stating that this would include "pediatricians and veterinarians". From the very beginning I stated it was 97% of CLIMATOLOGISTS. Not just "scientists."
3. But that didn't stop you. Because in your very next post, you then repeated the exact same "pediatricians and veterinarians" lie AGAIN, even after I proved otherwise.
4. You lied about me not providing a link to verify the "97% of climatologists agree on AGW", when I did that... RIGHT FROM THE START.
And that's just SOME of the lies. And they're just the ones about ME. And just the ones you made about me RECENTLY.
keeps asking two questions: "How can ALL these climatologists be in one huge, elaborate conspiracy? And what would they ALL have to gain from it?" It's not an elaborate conspiracy, Mr. Leftist Blogger. In fact, it's quite simple.
Money: As much as the AGW proponents love to point at any scientist or commentator with connections to industry as being "paid for by Big Business,"
I don't even have to do that. I can just point out that none of them are climatologists. You know, the ones that actually know what this is all about? lol
But of course, big business would never lie about science.
it's important to point out that there's a lot of money to be had by pushing AGW in the form of grant money. Academia is not immune to the charms of greed, as grant money is a gravy train for anyone willing to sign onto whatever "hot" notion is making its way through academia. And then, it's only a matter of coming up with a paper agreeing with the dominant notion and you're set.
MORE money can easily be made by making anti-AGW discoveries that would save corporations money. They would pay them out the wazoo, far more than some "grant money." So why can't they come up with anything? Because they HAVE NO EVIDENCE to support it.
Prestige: With grants come prestige for the people who received them, and for the academic institutions they represent. Academia is full of egos, egos that will do anything to be stroked. What better way to get your ego stroked than to be the center of attention by releasing a paper that "confirms" what the rest of academia already believes to be true?
"The Scientist Who Proved Global Warming Is A Fraud" wouldn't bring prestige?? Prestige comes by being one of the many that already proved the same thing?
Uniformity: Academia used to be an area where different thoughts could be debated on their merits. Over the past two or three decades, academia has turned into a conformity factory. If you don't agree with what the prevailing idea is, you're often branded as a troublemaker, a fraud, or even as someone worthy of being ridiculed and blackballed. Even if the prevailing idea in academia is built on a house of cards, there will be a backlash against anyone who points it out, regardless of the factual information he or she brings to the table.
You have to have something to debate first. You can have debates on which religion is the correct one, but you can't debate the science.
Again, this is why Creationism can't be taught in science classes. It's not a conspiracy, it's because THERE'S NO SCIENCE to back it up. If the science backs it up, NOTHING can stop it. Conspiracy or no conspiracy. But if the science isn't there, you've GOT nothing.
When real, hard science backs up a new idea that goes against the grain, it's EMBRACED. You know why? Because it's EXCITING to learn new things. Even if those things go against what we've been taught. It enlightens us and moves us FORWARD. That's how science works! That's why people BECOME scientists in their favorite field!
Put simply, any dissent costs academia who have bought into a prevailing notion money, prestige, and uniformity. Greed, pride, and conformity.
So you actually are claiming that 97% of climatologists are in on a conspiracy. And not just any conspiracy, but a "simple" conspiracy. Each and every one of them are just lying, and covering it up. Simply.
Cool, I just wanted to hear you say it (finally).
That's what your "science" is really promoting with its religious fanaticism over a debatable premise, Mr. Leftist Blogger.
"Debatable premise"? You said AGW is a "myth" and a "hoax." For it to be a myth or hoax, there would be no evidence to support it. You can't debate something without evidence to support it. If your claim is that AGW doesn't exist at all, then how could one debate it? Now you're saying it IS "debatable"? Which is it?
And, yes, I find the irony of you carrying water for the green religion after bashing me for my Christian beliefs quite delicious.
What's delicious is that you're saying each and every one of the 97% of climatologists, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and the American Meteorological Society are all just lying about AGW. And the mountains and mountains of evidence is "simply" fabricated.
But at the same time, you worship a messiah that has no evidence supporting his existence whatsoever. In fact, the evidence (and simple common sense) shows the opposite.
That's not only hypocrisy, it's also lunacy.
UPDATE: A commenter on the Lindaman post stated:
Doesn't the original question of "how can they ALL be wrong" sort of prove that Lefist Blogger already drank the koolaid, and is spewing the propaganda even though he has no clue about it's veracity? Perhaps it's all bunkum. :) But he doesn't even bother to verify. He just plays Pavlovian Dog and barks what he's been told to bark. What ever happened to their need for intellectual curiosity? Or at least intellectual honesty?
"Honesty"? You're not even telling the truth about my QUESTION!
I never asked "How can they ALL be wrong?" I asked "How can they ALL be lying?" and "How can they ALL be in on a conspiracy?"
Because in order for your denier claims to be correct, 97% of climatologists would HAVE to be collectively lying... apparently for "grant money and conformist prestige." Simply.
Now THAT requires some major league Kool-Aid.
Idiotic cowards, the lot of you. Proven fact.
