Challenge accepted
Surely it’s time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies.
Try it.
48 Responses to “Challenge accepted”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
June 6th, 2011 at 11:38 am
Notice how much hatred, name calling and spittle-filled rhetoric … but no desire to confront the actual problems with the science.
But us skeptics are the bad guys?
June 6th, 2011 at 11:56 am
Statists advocating use of force against those who disagree with them. I’m SHOCKED!…
June 6th, 2011 at 12:06 pm
Sent this git, to use the British word for him, an email asking for his tattoo design. If it’s good enough, I just might get it.
June 6th, 2011 at 12:25 pm
I wonder if he’d be willing to get his hoax religion tattooed on HIS body.
Sorry dude, the whole thing was made up by some corrupt scientists willing to lie for unlimited grant funding, and the lies were eaten up by Authoritarian statists (from the left AND right) looking for new angles to tax and control the unwashed masses.
June 6th, 2011 at 12:28 pm
Filed under “Violent Leftists Ride Again.”
June 6th, 2011 at 12:47 pm
Wow, forced tattoos.Where have I heard that before?
June 6th, 2011 at 12:49 pm
Oh come on! He clearly states that he does intend for the tattoo to be conspicuous. He is probably just talking about a small number on the inner forearm… you know, so the guards of the camp know which of you has died at their hands vs. just sloughing off into the ever-after due to basic nutritional/medical neglect.
June 6th, 2011 at 12:58 pm
Global climate change….so what’s new? How long have scientists kept accurate records of the weather? Several hundred years? What about the thousands of years before we kept records? Climate changes from warm to cold to warm again. Are we doing damage to the ozone layer today? Yes. Can we do a better job or protecting the environment? Yes—-just get off my ass about it’s my fault. Technology goes so fast — let’s not invent any new stuff because it’s long term impact might damage something in future. So much for progress.
June 6th, 2011 at 1:02 pm
Well yeah Breda, the Nazi’s were leftists too, despite what they’re teaching kids in school these days. Hell, they tried to teach me their lies too, but they didn’t stick.
June 6th, 2011 at 1:44 pm
Everytime you see a near record high or low that is the hottest or the coldest since 1932 or whatever, ask yourself “why was it worse then than now?”.
June 6th, 2011 at 2:22 pm
Where I’m sitting was under a hundred or so feet of ice 15000 years ago. Why isn’t it now? Greedy white hunter-gatherers out driving their SUVs while hunting the wooly mammoth to extinction? Yeah, there are some people that need to be slapped around some.
June 6th, 2011 at 2:35 pm
“Everytime you see a near record high or low that is the hottest or the coldest since 1932 or whatever, ask yourself “why was it worse then than now?”.”
Why not ask why the last 80 years are more relevant than the previous 5 billion?
June 6th, 2011 at 3:39 pm
What funny is I don’t think anyone claims that the climate isn’t changing. The argument is about the cause. I don’t think it’s man made, further more many of the “green” technologies being pushed are actually uneconomical and not that environmentally friendly.
Then again these people aren’t known for stepping back and thinking about how things actually work.
June 6th, 2011 at 3:47 pm
It hasn’t rained like this here since 1943 – and I’m supposed to believe them about what?
June 6th, 2011 at 3:47 pm
OOps 1934.
June 6th, 2011 at 4:07 pm
When it comes to advocates of numbers forcibly tattoed on arms,I think it’s okay to ignore Godwin’s Law. To misquote Freud: “There are times when a cigar *is* a cigar.”
June 6th, 2011 at 4:20 pm
Damn, sorry.
June 6th, 2011 at 4:22 pm
New challenge…design the tattoo win 500 bucks –
http://junkscience.com/2011/06/06/win-500-in-the-climate-change-denier-tattoo-sweepstakes/
June 6th, 2011 at 5:00 pm
Why does it have to be a conspiracy by [insert disliked group(s) here]?
Why do people believe whatever they read/hear that supports their preconceived opinion, and disbelieve what doesn’t support it?
I believe peer-reviewed articles in peer-reviewed journals like Nature far more than what I read in a blog or forum or hear from a friend, regardless of whether I like it or agree with it.
I personally can’t verify that people are causing climate change, but I can verify that if I go into a room, close the door and start farting, the room’s going to stink because of me, and I can extrapolate this room to the whole world. There’s only so much air, and if you put enough of something into it, you are going to change it. A+B=C. This isn’t rocket surgery.
The same fact-sleuthing we use to debunk gun control myths isn’t applied here, because we already believe that climate change is wrong. When the Brady folks say “Guns cause crime” we look to the statistics published by the FBI and the CDC – trustworthy sources. When someone says “People don’t cause climate change” or “The science is flawed” we believe what we hear rather than look to trusted sources, like we do with gun control issues. Why?
June 6th, 2011 at 5:18 pm
I wonder how much carbon emissions will be generated by all that forced tattooing? LMAO
June 6th, 2011 at 5:38 pm
Stip400: We don’t believe what we hear, we have determined that the science is indeed flawed, that the climate change on Mars coincidental with that on Earth is likely not anthropogenic in origin, and that the percentage of climate change that is anthropogenic is at best unknown and at worst some likely small fraction of the natural climate change. We don’t think flawed science, BS reasoning, and incorrect conclusions are a reason to embrace total control of statist totalitarians over our energy cost and consumption.
In this, we are reasoning very similarly to the way we debate the anti-rights gun bigots. When we say, “Prove it before you infringe our inherent rights,” and they respond with, “DENIER!!!!!” the argument gets pretty clear in both cases.
June 6th, 2011 at 7:19 pm
Stip400, these blogs you sneer at have been “fact sleuthing” the AGW claims for a dozen years now. Fact based criticisms that you seem not to be aware of.
Some of those criticisms have been published in peer reviewed journals, but among the revelations in the CRU emails released some time ago was that the AGW crowd had been bullying journals not to publish criticism of the AGW crowd’s work.
June 6th, 2011 at 7:38 pm
Dump-truck mouth, wheelbarrow ass.
June 6th, 2011 at 8:19 pm
“Surely it’s time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies.”
Come get some!
Why is it that all these leftist pantywaists are so violent? Of course, since we have the firearms if they ever really do become violent it won’t last very long.
June 6th, 2011 at 8:27 pm
@LKP: Note to “warmists” — you’re welcome to come try it.
June 6th, 2011 at 8:36 pm
I mentally substitute “plant food” every time I hear C02 in relation to glowball warming.
When I see the manbearpig tear down his mansion, sell the house boat with dual 300 hp engines, dump the private jet and ride a train, then I’ll pay a little more attention to them. Until then it’s all a scheme to control the little people.
June 6th, 2011 at 10:17 pm
Peer-reviewed like the CRU work, Stip-400?
A spike in global warming since the little ice age is peer-reviewed just fine.
Anthropogenic Global Warming is about as peer-reviewed as Anthropogenic Plate Tectonics.
June 6th, 2011 at 10:24 pm
What a moonbat. Reminds me of that fucktard Jonathan Swift who wanted poor people to sell their children as food for the rich. These people are morons.
June 6th, 2011 at 11:24 pm
Lots of people have their beliefs tattooed on voluntarily. It just seems like a wast of space to have “Al Gore Is A Twit” tattooed on when you could get something more appealing to the opposite sex like “Death To All Extremists” in Olde English lettering.
June 6th, 2011 at 11:32 pm
Better yet,
Molon Labe with the period correct Greek letters.
June 6th, 2011 at 11:35 pm
So you believe it when scientists tell you about the ice-age, or wooly mammoths; and you use the technology they come up with like computers and what not- but when it goes against your bias they must be wrong!
BTW, this issue has nothing to do with guns. Just because I love guns, doesn’t mean I’m an idiot.
Have a good one.
June 6th, 2011 at 11:48 pm
Nathan, science is not about “believing” what an authority figure with a tv “science” label on the crawl says.
Science is about the scientific method, reproducibility of result, and disclosure of data and methods. Things that the AGW crowd does not do.
June 6th, 2011 at 11:59 pm
I’m a professor of a hard science at a major university. SPQR, you’re wrong. The evidence is overwhelming, and peer reviewed. Eight years ago it was, “it doesn’t exist!!” and now it’s, “we don’t cause it!” You guys should keep your stories straight.
June 7th, 2011 at 12:02 am
I’m thinking of getting one.
Nullius in verba
essentially, take no ones word
It is the motto of the Royal Society but since their position is that their is a consensus, they probably need a new one. More modern one aligned with the return to dialectic rather then skeptical testing for mistakes by experimentation.
June 7th, 2011 at 12:12 am
Well, if the evidence is overwhelming, there should be no problem with making the data and methods available for external review? And, of course, a reasonable and validated reason for hiding the decline and the MWP. Also, as there has been some warming, there is no good causation to the industrial revolution nor that the impact of the effects other than wild eyed speculation about the system without consideration of the moderating response by the Earth system.
There was some warming since 1980 but now there is some cooling so all in all, I’d believe this guy who has 30 yrs of good real world agreement with his prediction in 1979.
June 7th, 2011 at 12:34 am
@Nathan: Hard science, that’s nice, real nice. Science where you get to abstract away all the “real world” problems like friction, air pressure, chemical contaminants, etc. in order to make your equations come out nice and clean. Ideal gas law: beautiful. Universal gravitation: wonderful. Quarks, atoms, neutrinos, photons — basically anything quantum, i.e. there is a definite number of individual, indivisible particles that are interacting: incredible.
The problem is when you have a bunch of dudes who have taken all of those classes and believe that the equations are nice and easy, and they go and try to apply those same ideas to the most complicated system that we know about: the Earth. It would be hard enough if the Earth were a closed system, but we’re being bombarded by daylight, meteors, cosmic rays, and God knows what else that we might not even be able to detect, let alone predict how they might interact with the humongous system of water, earth, and air that surrounds us. (I love those giant pools of water thousands of feet between the earth that physicists use to detect neutrinos.) There are all kinds of feedback effects, nonlinear interactions, God knows what else. You can’t “abstract away” ANYTHING because your model purports to model EVERYTHING. It’s the messiest job I can think of, and I surely don’t envy the researchers who are doing it (who I believe are mostly honest and mostly well-intentioned).
Did you know that the ocean floors are a natural sink of CO2? More CO2 in the atmosphere => more CO2 dissolved in the oceans => more precipitates out and creates more limestone on the ocean floor.
Did you know that the temperature data which informs much of the climate change “raw data” is grossly distorted? There are temperature measuring stations close to major highways, buildings, and (in Russia) exposed steam pipes.
None of this flawed data has been thrown out, and in fact that data has been used to help construct these monstrous computer programs which are used to “model” the climate… and which no climate researcher has ever published for comment or review, ever. What are they hiding? Why don’t they show us the code — or even, many times, the raw data that they used as inputs? Make it available for download. Make it replicable. Let me compile the code and run it, and read through and see how many fudge factors get thrown in to any little calculation. That openness is the basis of science, and unfortunately these climate researchers are keeping their methods very secret.
June 7th, 2011 at 1:07 am
After reading all the above comments, did anyone actually click the link Uncle provided? Or get past the first sentence? Sure doesn’t look like it.
Actually read the whole thing. The author ends up pretty much evenhandedly slapping around the left and pro AGW crowd as much as he does the deniers.
June 7th, 2011 at 2:58 am
No Scott.
He pretends to be even handed. Then, at the end, he argues that the carbon credit tax the urban coalition government is about to slam Australia with is “reasonable”.
Like bloody hell it is. He’s clearly in the tank with the anthropogenic lunatics.
June 7th, 2011 at 3:00 am
Smijer: He tries to be satiric, but at the last minute he starts arguing that baby protein might be good for you.
June 7th, 2011 at 7:01 am
Anthony Weiner is also a professor of hard science, and I wouldn’t take his word for anything.
June 7th, 2011 at 7:34 am
Eh – hard science. I have a PhD in nuclear physics, and it’s hard enough to predict what happens when you run one nucleus into another. It’s even difficult to figure out what happened, and that’s only a hundred or so baryons.
Now we have an entire planet – air, water, earth, life, clouds, volcanoes, and a lot more. It is moving around a solar furnace which is known to vary on an 11-year cycle (more or less) and historically has also varied on a longer scale.
A bunch of scientists look at it all, say they’ve figured it out, and point at me? That’s hubris. The Earth has warmed and cooled many times, even before humanity evolved. But it’s undeniably us?
I’ll give ‘global warming’ a tentative agreement. I’ll give ‘anthropogenic, catastrophic’ the raspberry. And when they start trying to control and tax me over it, I’ll know damn well what’s going on.
June 7th, 2011 at 8:40 am
30 years ago it was also ice age is coming. Then global warming. And now, it’s climate change. Everyone move the goal posts!
June 7th, 2011 at 8:46 am
Nathan may have remembered the Ice Age scare Uncle, had he been old enough to remember the 1970s. Now with his many many many years of life experience he knows more than the rest of us.
June 7th, 2011 at 11:11 am
There’s another issue with global warming/climate change. I think most people agree that the earth is slowly warming, along with the other planets in our solar system. Whether the cause is anthropogenic or purely natural is highly disputed, and so is what, if anything, humans should do about it. However, there’s another aspect that doesn’t get talked about too much: Why do people assume that global warming will be a universally bad thing? Yes, if ice melts and the sea levels rise, some areas will be adversely affected, but we will also turn vast areas of unproductive tundra into usable farmland, regain southern England as a wine production region, and so forth. During the medieval warm period, temps were actually above the levels proposed in the more dire AGW predictions. That was only a few hundred years ago, and we have ample records of the results. Greenland was largely abandoned when the climate turned colder, but was a reasonably nice area to live during the warm period. England rivaled France for wine production. Mines that are buried under glaciers now were producing useful products. So, worst case, even if the AGW proponents are correct, we will not see global catastrophy. At worst we will see some areas become useless as others become useful. Sounds like business as usual to me…
June 7th, 2011 at 3:10 pm
“I personally can’t verify that people are causing climate change, but I can verify that if I go into a room, close the door and start farting, the room’s going to stink because of me, and I can extrapolate this room to the whole world. There’s only so much air, and if you put enough of something into it, you are going to change it. A+B=C. This isn’t rocket surgery.”
If this is what “trusted sources” have lead you to believe about how greenhouse gases work, then I think it is pretty safe to say that, yes, their science is flawed.
“When someone says “People don’t cause climate change” or “The science is flawed” we believe what we hear rather than look to trusted sources, like we do with gun control issues. Why?”
Maybe because AGW scientists like John Mitchell say stuff like, “People underestimate the power of models. Observational evidence is not very useful,” adding, “Our approach is not entirely empirical.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/16/people-underestimate-the-power-of-models-observational-evidence-is-not-very-useful/
June 7th, 2011 at 7:42 pm
We got us some AGW models…cool. Prolby purty smart shit. Now we gonna impose a world gubmint on all 6 billion of you basterds to do what we see needs fit to be done. If 5.5 billion of you recalcitrant morons tell us to fuck off, then we gonna punish the 500 million idiot english speaking turds, cuz we got duh powwha..
June 8th, 2011 at 3:33 am
“global warming” may be happening, it may be significantly disruptive, and it may be anthropogenic. (all different questions, note).
But the proposed solution — more government power — well, the consequences of that sort of thing is no hypothesis, it’s historical fact. Over 120 million dead in the last century alone, many with tattoos.
I’ll take my chances with what a few degrees of possible warming may do, and keep my capitalist liberty and my life, thank you.
June 8th, 2011 at 8:57 am
You were joking/high/drunk/kidding when you typed that, right?
Cool.