Oct.9, 2016--the debates are finally clearly just arguments between rich old white people.

[Harry Bosch]

I see; so your reasoned response here is the combine an ad-hominem (I presume that you don't see swearing fealty to the queen as a positive trait, but I am unsure of how it would render my comments about Jill Stein false if I were to do that - which I don't) with a poor attempt at tu-quoque (I say that a leader you support is less than perfect, so you try to imply that I too support an imperfect leader).

You are wrong here on so many levels that it is hard to know where to start - Not only do I not swear fealty to the Queen, but if I did, it wouldn't have the slightest bearing on what I said - Jill Stein would remain a representative of the anti-science viewpoints of the left wing, just as Trump and Johnson represent the anti-science viewpoints of the right wing.

Still, I guess we can put this first sentence of yours down to an over emotional response to a perceived attack on your values; Let's pretend for a moment that you didn't make a MASSIVE fool of yourself here, and look at what else you have to say:

Your post is preposterous...Stein is the only candidate whose policy aligns with science. You are talking through your hat and really don't have a clue what you are talking about.

No, I am making a simple and accurate observation. Stein is opposed to science where it doesn't fit with her ideological position - and in this respect, she is just like Trump. They differ only in their choice of ideology.

Stein opposes GMOs ...

Label GMOs, and put a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe

(source; my bold).
... holding them to a ridiculous standard that no other breeding technique is required to meet.

And she stands in the way of the most promising technology we have to fight climate change.

End destructive energy extraction: fracking, tar sands, offshore drilling, oil trains, mountaintop removal, and uranium mines.

(same source as above)
one of these things is not like the others.

Phase out nuclear power and end nuclear subsidies.

(source)

Nuclear power is the only way to make a significant impact on climate change, and despite the hypothetical and hysterical response to it by the Greens, it is now a mature technology that is demonstrably safer than any other technology that has ever been in widespread use. To deny this is the epitome of 'anti-science'; The only reason people oppose nuclear power is because they are emotionally invested in doing so - they are scared of it. Being scared of something that is known to be safe is not rational. It is understandable, but that's not good enough in a politician. Would you support a politician who wanted to ban air travel on safety grounds because she was scared of flying?

You have impressed me over time as a person who fits the description you project onto Stein which is completely without merit...it is you who simply pretends the world is as simple and neat as your belief system would like it to be."

Clearly you haven't read many of my posts then

Are you also a climate change denier? Don't rant about science if you are one.

...aaaand there's the proof. It would be a simple matter for you to find out my oft stated position on this issue - but instead of finding out the facts, you choose to believe that which supports your emotional needs. A word to the wise - when accusing someone of anything, it's a good idea to check first that they are not easily able to show you up as a fool or a liar.

January 2015:

First, how likely is it that the world will undergo dramatic temperature rise over the foreseeable future?

That depends on what you mean by 'dramatic'. If we instead ask about 'harmful' temperature rise, the answer is 'almost certain'.

Second, how likely is it that it will result in dramatic climate change?

Given that this is the same question as your first, the answer is the same. You can try to pretend that there are multiple uncertainties here, but you are not fooling anyone - these first two of your points do not describe two uncertainties, they are two ways of looking at one 'very likely indeedity'.

Third Second, how likely is it that it will cause substantive net harm, rather than being a 'wash', or even beneficial?

Very likely indeed. Google is your friend; if you don't know what the scientific consensus is, you must be living under a rock; and if you think there is a better epistemology than scientific consensus to arrive at an answer, you are a fool.

Four Third, how likely is it that we know how to fix it, and if it is worth it?

100% certain. We can fix it by replacing coal, oil and gas power with nuclear, solar, and wind. The only obstacles to this are political, not technical.

Last, how likely is it that it is going to be solved given international politics?

Very unlikely, as long as people like you are lobbying against the idea that there is a problem, and people like your political opponents are actively lobbying against the biggest part of the solution.

When you have a bipartisan system, and both sides are hell-bent on doing the wrong thing (albeit for different reasons), then it is time for the non-partisan masses to rise up and tell the political game-players to fuck off.

It takes a special kind of stupid to characterize this as the post of a "climate change denier".

Or this from February 2015:

And if anyone in the US North East reckons that the current cold weather means that there is no global warming, show them this article: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/brisbane-weather-autumn-brings-heatwave-to-city-20150301-13sa80.html and point out that for every unusually cold day they have seen this winter, we have seen an abnormally hot day - and it has also been unusually warm in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest, for those who refuse to believe in the existence of places outside the USA.

and finally, from June 2015:

Compare the energy mix of any other OECD nation with that of France, and it becomes VERY clear - opposition to nuclear power IS SUPPORT FOR COAL, whether or not you understand that that is what you are doing.

What "anti-science" view points are you talking about.? Explain your preposterous position...if you can.

I can, and have. Your preposterous denial of the facts is unsurprising - most people respond with emotion rather than reason when selecting a political candidate to support - but it is, nevertheless, disappointing.

Jill Stein is anti-science; But you give her a pass on this, because she is anti- the science you too would like to deny.

Jill Stein is a Harvard educated Medical Doctor and, contrary to what you think in the outback, she is not opposed to vaccines and her take on the necessity of dealing with climate change can hardly be characterized ad "anti-science." What do you think science is? Just something that produces bulldozers and strip mines? That is just something you believe in like a religion. Stein is not opposed to vaccines. She is opposed to your idea of what science is. That is to her credit. You are anti environmental science yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiQWhJj-3yQ

Sorry but she's a quack. Her support is dropping like a stone as people learn about her quacky beliefs.

 

[bilby]

I see; so your reasoned response here is the combine an ad-hominem (I presume that you don't see swearing fealty to the queen as a positive trait, but I am unsure of how it would render my comments about Jill Stein false if I were to do that - which I don't) with a poor attempt at tu-quoque (I say that a leader you support is less than perfect, so you try to imply that I too support an imperfect leader).

You are wrong here on so many levels that it is hard to know where to start - Not only do I not swear fealty to the Queen, but if I did, it wouldn't have the slightest bearing on what I said - Jill Stein would remain a representative of the anti-science viewpoints of the left wing, just as Trump and Johnson represent the anti-science viewpoints of the right wing.

Still, I guess we can put this first sentence of yours down to an over emotional response to a perceived attack on your values; Let's pretend for a moment that you didn't make a MASSIVE fool of yourself here, and look at what else you have to say:

Your post is preposterous...Stein is the only candidate whose policy aligns with science. You are talking through your hat and really don't have a clue what you are talking about.

No, I am making a simple and accurate observation. Stein is opposed to science where it doesn't fit with her ideological position - and in this respect, she is just like Trump. They differ only in their choice of ideology.

Stein opposes GMOs ...

Label GMOs, and put a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe

(source; my bold).
... holding them to a ridiculous standard that no other breeding technique is required to meet.

And she stands in the way of the most promising technology we have to fight climate change.

End destructive energy extraction: fracking, tar sands, offshore drilling, oil trains, mountaintop removal, and uranium mines.

(same source as above)
one of these things is not like the others.

Phase out nuclear power and end nuclear subsidies.

(source)

Nuclear power is the only way to make a significant impact on climate change, and despite the hypothetical and hysterical response to it by the Greens, it is now a mature technology that is demonstrably safer than any other technology that has ever been in widespread use. To deny this is the epitome of 'anti-science'; The only reason people oppose nuclear power is because they are emotionally invested in doing so - they are scared of it. Being scared of something that is known to be safe is not rational. It is understandable, but that's not good enough in a politician. Would you support a politician who wanted to ban air travel on safety grounds because she was scared of flying?

You have impressed me over time as a person who fits the description you project onto Stein which is completely without merit...it is you who simply pretends the world is as simple and neat as your belief system would like it to be."

Clearly you haven't read many of my posts then

Are you also a climate change denier? Don't rant about science if you are one.

...aaaand there's the proof. It would be a simple matter for you to find out my oft stated position on this issue - but instead of finding out the facts, you choose to believe that which supports your emotional needs. A word to the wise - when accusing someone of anything, it's a good idea to check first that they are not easily able to show you up as a fool or a liar.

January 2015:

First, how likely is it that the world will undergo dramatic temperature rise over the foreseeable future?

That depends on what you mean by 'dramatic'. If we instead ask about 'harmful' temperature rise, the answer is 'almost certain'.

Second, how likely is it that it will result in dramatic climate change?

Given that this is the same question as your first, the answer is the same. You can try to pretend that there are multiple uncertainties here, but you are not fooling anyone - these first two of your points do not describe two uncertainties, they are two ways of looking at one 'very likely indeedity'.

Third Second, how likely is it that it will cause substantive net harm, rather than being a 'wash', or even beneficial?

Very likely indeed. Google is your friend; if you don't know what the scientific consensus is, you must be living under a rock; and if you think there is a better epistemology than scientific consensus to arrive at an answer, you are a fool.

Four Third, how likely is it that we know how to fix it, and if it is worth it?

100% certain. We can fix it by replacing coal, oil and gas power with nuclear, solar, and wind. The only obstacles to this are political, not technical.

Last, how likely is it that it is going to be solved given international politics?

Very unlikely, as long as people like you are lobbying against the idea that there is a problem, and people like your political opponents are actively lobbying against the biggest part of the solution.

When you have a bipartisan system, and both sides are hell-bent on doing the wrong thing (albeit for different reasons), then it is time for the non-partisan masses to rise up and tell the political game-players to fuck off.

It takes a special kind of stupid to characterize this as the post of a "climate change denier".

Or this from February 2015:

And if anyone in the US North East reckons that the current cold weather means that there is no global warming, show them this article: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/brisbane-weather-autumn-brings-heatwave-to-city-20150301-13sa80.html and point out that for every unusually cold day they have seen this winter, we have seen an abnormally hot day - and it has also been unusually warm in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest, for those who refuse to believe in the existence of places outside the USA.

and finally, from June 2015:

Compare the energy mix of any other OECD nation with that of France, and it becomes VERY clear - opposition to nuclear power IS SUPPORT FOR COAL, whether or not you understand that that is what you are doing.

What "anti-science" view points are you talking about.? Explain your preposterous position...if you can.

I can, and have. Your preposterous denial of the facts is unsurprising - most people respond with emotion rather than reason when selecting a political candidate to support - but it is, nevertheless, disappointing.

Jill Stein is anti-science; But you give her a pass on this, because she is anti- the science you too would like to deny.

Jill Stein is a Harvard educated Medical Doctor and, contrary to what you think in the outback, she is not opposed to vaccines and her take on the necessity of dealing with climate change can hardly be characterized ad "anti-science." What do you think science is? Just something that produces bulldozers and strip mines? That is just something you believe in like a religion. Stein is not opposed to vaccines. She is opposed to your idea of what science is. That is to her credit. You are anti environmental science yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiQWhJj-3yQ

Your written response does nothing to refute any of my post. Simply saying 'nuh-uh' is not a refutation, even in the outback; As a physician, Stein should know better - but 'should' and 'does' are not the same thing.

I am not able to watch video at this time, so if you want that part of your response to be considered at all by me, you will need to provide a summary of what it says.

 

[Elixir]

Label GMOs, and put a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe

Anyone who knows diddly-squat about science knows that proof is for mathematics and alcohol. Stein presumably knows this, and is using dishonest rhetoric to pander to a science-ignorant base.
OTOH, it is advised to never ascribe to malice that which stupidity is sufficient to explain... I could be wrong.

ETA: It's probably a good thing to let her bleed off some of the anti-science vote, lest the right wingnuts and left wingnuts should ally themselves...

 

[arkirk]

Well, there's a larger issue to address; that being the fitness to hold the office of President of the United States. If your first concern is (and my first concern is) Donald Trump's fitness to hold the office, policy position takes a backseat. I mean really at this stage of the game and given how the game is playing out, who the fuck cares about Donald's policy positions?

Clinton has THE SAME PROBLEM. Clinton is just another cheer leader who got rich riding a machine. She is no more fit to be president than Trump. Her problem is that she has a tendency to be shrill and aggressive in the international policy area. She is a serious war liability.

 

[arkirk]

Anyone who knows diddly-squat about science knows that proof is for mathematics and alcohol. Stein presumably knows this, and is using dishonest rhetoric to pander to a science-ignorant base.
OTOH, it is advised to never ascribe to malice that which stupidity is sufficient to explain... I could be wrong.

ETA: It's probably a good thing to let her bleed off some of the anti-science vote, lest the right wingnuts and left wingnuts should ally themselves...

Good! The both of you can take over right away. You guys are just plain silly. There is nothing anit-science in the entire Green Party policy. It is pro humanity and you are so hung up on yourselves you cannot admit as Bob Dylan said,"the waters around you have grown." Global warming is real. Global nuclear threat is real. Global pollution is real. Nuclear pollution is real and a threat. Endless wars will end when the people are all dead...and you want us to go with leaders who propose no changes in these areas. I am glad Bilby can't vote in the U.S. We already have too many Bilbys here. You guys don't have any vision beyond your own time.

 

[bilby]

Well, there's a larger issue to address; that being the fitness to hold the office of President of the United States. If your first concern is (and my first concern is) Donald Trump's fitness to hold the office, policy position takes a backseat. I mean really at this stage of the game and given how the game is playing out, who the fuck cares about Donald's policy positions?

Clinton has THE SAME PROBLEM. Clinton is just another cheer leader who got rich riding a machine. She is no more fit to be president than Trump. Her problem is that she has a tendency to be shrill and aggressive in the international policy area. She is a serious war liability.

Ah, yes, "shrill".

The well established dog-whistle meaning "female".

Obviously we can't have someone shrill in charge. Only people with penises are fit for office.

 

[arkirk]

Clinton has THE SAME PROBLEM. Clinton is just another cheer leader who got rich riding a machine. She is no more fit to be president than Trump. Her problem is that she has a tendency to be shrill and aggressive in the international policy area. She is a serious war liability.

Ah, yes, "shrill".

The well established dog-whistle meaning "female".

Obviously we can't have someone shrill in charge. Only people with penises are fit for office.

You are way off base. While I haven't concerned myself with checking the candidates for penises, I strongly suspect that Jill Stein probably does not have one. You are hearing dog whistles where there are none. I am just pointing out that the GREEN PARTY has a platform and Jill has adhered to it in her campaign. If there were a dog whistle I am sure you could hear it loud and clear, so I must assume you are spoofing me. Shame on you Bilby. You make a pretense of knowing American politics and everything about America from the outback. The dog on your avatar should be a dingo. I think of you as just a loudmouth with a propensity for repeating a lot of pre packaged talking points. You really don't know what you are talking about. Clinton is a CONSISTENT WARMONGER. Does that clarify things a little bit for you, my oversensitive critic?

 

[bilby]

Ah, yes, "shrill".

The well established dog-whistle meaning "female".

Obviously we can't have someone shrill in charge. Only people with penises are fit for office.

You are way off base. While I haven't concerned myself with checking the candidates for penises, I strongly suspect that Jill Stein probably does not have one. You are hearing dog whistles where there are none. I am just pointing out that the GREEN PARTY has a platform and Jill has adhered to it in her campaign. If there were a dog whistle I am sure you could hear it loud and clear, so I must assume you are spoofing me. Shame on you Bilby. You make a pretense of knowing American politics and everything about America from the outback. The dog on your avatar should be a dingo. I think of you as just a loudmouth with a propensity for repeating a lot of pre packaged talking points. You really don't know what you are talking about. Clinton is a CONSISTENT WARMONGER. Does that clarify things a little bit for you, my oversensitive critic?

Oh, I'm sorry; I just assumed that mis-characterising one's opponent's position was the way you liked to engage in discussion. Now it appears that you DON'T like it when people make unsubstantiated and incorrect claims about your position - and yet for some reason, you persist in doing it to others. If I didn't know better, I might say that treating others badly, while complaining when they do the same to you, was the behaviour of an asshole.

You are a master of projection, my oversensitive critic. If only you ability at introspection was 1% as strong, you might not make quite such a fool of yourself.

 

[Elixir]

You guys are just plain silly. There is nothing anit-science in the entire Green Party policy.

Then why is their nominee an anti-vaxer, anti-GMO and andti nuclear energy nut?
Maybe none of that is part of the Green platform, but it sure looks otherwise.

It is pro humanity.

So is every other party - just ask them. If the greens or the alt-right really cared about humanity, they should embrace the ONE thing with which humans have been able to enhance their quality of life, and their very lifespans: science. Instead they both pander to irrational fears.