THE ALT-RIGHT HAILS ITS VICTORIOUS GOD-EMPEROR

[Dill]

(12-10-2016, 05:47 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I get that from actual studies I've read.  I don't trust the press in general as I've seen alarming politicization of media, economics and science over the past 20 years that eschew intellectual rigor and good science.  Obama is absolutely a demagogue to anyone who isn't a nuthugger - it's basically his contribution to transforming the office.

You expect me to believe you've actually read and understood real research?  I've read your posts, and you can't fool me.  I've heard there's something called a useful idiot, and I know that's not me so I often wonder who that means.  

I will bet my house you can't tell and explain the difference between climate change fact and "theory".  Just because I reject the liberal agenda, or story, doesn't mean I'm a bible thumping conservative.  You can't claim you aren't owned by the bubble, and then give me pre-conditioned responses completely bankrupt of conscious intellectualism like little Hitlers spreading the propaganda.

"Intellectual rigor and good science" profferred as base values, followed by a stream of ad hominem and bald assertions baldly--or should I say "absolutely"--re-asserted. Not a good start at all, if you are trying to establish that it's the other guy who relies on "pre-conditioned responses completely bankrupt of conscious intellectualism." I am not sure what "conscious intellectualism" would be, but I do know the role of public intellectual normally eschews the kind of incontinent rage expressed above.

 I am pretty sure that "real research" advances by  demonstration, not one person claiming he has "read" something and others just haven't. I don't expect you or any other poster in this forum to "believe" anything without demonstration, which you'd know if you read my posts carefully.  

You appear to use the terms "fact" and "theory" more in a non-scientific, journalistic sense, facts being bits of information or data conventionally held true, and theory being a word for what's left over as speculation or unsettled opinion. Hard to tell, therefore, what criteria would have to be satisfied before you deemed any explanation valid. In any case, I don't claim to be a climate scientist. But I do claim that laypersons should, nevertheless, strive to inform themselves about climate change--including its politics, which at this point appears to be more decisive for public policy than actual climate research.