1 1
brenthutch

Cancel culture

Recommended Posts

It’s noteworthy, how two threads with nearly a hundred thousand views covering a collective span of nearly two decades, has been canceled, just as it became apparent the left side of the political spectrum was on the loosing side of the argument.  The only reason to lock the thread is because the debate is settled, the lefties have conceded and any further discussion would just amount to punching down.  Concession accepted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Are you like 12 years old?

Did you notice that after more than a decade of conversation, the thread was locked after you became the face of the loosing side of the argument.  You even embarrass the folks who agree with you.

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
15 minutes ago, olofscience said:

If I'm 12 and I can read scientific papers, what does that make you?

You may be able to read them, you just can’t understand them [cry]

BTW, if you persist in this sophomoric behavior, this will be locked, as you are an embarrassment to those on your side.

 

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

It’s noteworthy, how two threads with nearly a hundred thousand views covering a collective span of nearly two decades, has been canceled, just as it became apparent the left side of the political spectrum was on the loosing side of the argument.  The only reason to lock the thread is because the debate is settled, the lefties have conceded and any further discussion would just amount to punching down.  Concession accepted.

"Cancel culture".  Brought to you by the party that tried to cancel George Michael, the dixie chicks, dungeons and dragons, explicit lyrics, MTV, etc. 

 Watching you get owned by Olof is quite enjoyable.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, tonyhays said:

"Cancel culture".  Brought to you by the party that tried to cancel George Michael, the dixie chicks, dungeons and dragons, explicit lyrics, MTV, etc. 

 Watching you get owned by Olof is quite enjoyable.

Dixie Chicks? What kind of a horrible racist says something as intolerant as Dixie?  Didn’t you get the memo that “dixie” was canceled? 
Olof owns me like a nail owns a hammer :rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Dixie Chicks? What kind of a horrible racist says something as intolerant as Dixie?  Didn’t you get the memo that “dixie” was canceled? 
Olof owns me like a nail owns a hammer :rofl:

Not everything scales up, ponds for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tonyhays said:

"Cancel culture".  Brought to you by the party that tried to cancel George Michael, the dixie chicks, dungeons and dragons, explicit lyrics, MTV, etc. 

And now Gavin Newsom and Andrew Cuomo.  Brave right wing cancel culture warriors will not rest until they have been CANCELLED!  

Oh, and they are outraged by cancel culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, billvon said:

And now Gavin Newsom and Andrew Cuomo.  Brave right wing cancel culture warriors will not rest until they have been CANCELLED!  

Oh, and they are outraged by cancel culture.

I didn’t know that De Blasio, Schumer and AOC were part of the vast right wing conspiracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's pick up where we left off then, the most recent time brenthutch got owned:

  1. He was crowing about how the NOAA was saying it was the coldest February since 2014, but he kept changing it to 1998. (even if it's in the TITLE of the article he was quoting)
  2. When I said it was actually slightly warmer than average in February in the UK, he said "HA! The Met said it was "near average" NOT "slightly warmer than average"!"
  3. I asked "Is that all you got?"
  4. crickets...
  5. after 24 hours of silence from brent, Wendy helpfully locks the thread

Then brent pops up in another thread, which gets locked again. Then he says it's me that could get this thread locked :rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
1 hour ago, olofscience said:

Let's pick up where we left off then, the most recent time brenthutch got owned:

  1. He was crowing about how the NOAA was saying it was the coldest February since 2014, but he kept changing it to 1998. (even if it's in the TITLE of the article he was quoting)
  2. When I said it was actually slightly warmer than average in February in the UK, he said "HA! The Met said it was "near average" NOT "slightly warmer than average"!"
  3. I asked "Is that all you got?"
  4. crickets...
  5. after 24 hours of silence from brent, Wendy helpfully locks the thread

Then brent pops up in another thread, which gets locked again. Then he says it's me that could get this thread locked :rofl:

The thread wasn’t locked until you started chiming in and proved an embarrassment to the others on your side.  To be clear, I Shared that according to NOAA, February 2021 was colder than February 1998.  Yes 2014 was also colder than 1998.  (BTW, pointing out that 2014 was colder than 1998, doesn’t help your cause)

Also I noticed you didn’t have anything to say about: the reduction in climate related deaths, record food production, lack of trend in meteorological events, shrinking deserts and a literal greening of the planet.

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

The thread wasn’t locked until you started chiming in and proved an embarrassment to the others on your side.  To be clear, I Shared that according to NOAA, February 2021 was colder than February 1998.  Yes 2014 was also colder that 1998.  (BTW, pointing out that 2014 was colder than 1998, doesn’t help your cause)

Also I noticed you didn’t have anything to say about: the reduction in climate related deaths, record food production, lack of trend in meteorological events, shrinking deserts and a literal greening of the planet?

In fact, there is even more compelling proof that the world is not warming here:

Empirical Data.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
33 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

The thread wasn’t locked until you started chiming in and proved an embarrassment to the others on your side.

I must have struck a nerve, since it's the 3rd time you've been caught trying to use jargon that you had no idea about.

  1. You were quoting semiconductor physics you didn't understand and billvon (who worked with one of the biggest SEMICONDUCTOR companies in the world) caught you out
  2. You were quoting a paper about vegetation saying it was "real world observation, not a model" when it actually said MODEL in the title of the paper last year.
    • Your excuse? "I misread it, it was quick google search"
  3. You quoted the NOAA SRES model thinking it was real-world observation of ice accumulation in Antarctica, and I pointed out to you it was a MODEL (again) and you fell back to the NOAA article because that was about the limit of your understanding.

But yes, you really sound like a whuffo fake skydiver trying to impress with their fake skydiving knowledge. Not quite as entertaining as Zoe was, but I look forward to adding to the list. Embarrassment to their side? I hate to break it to you, but it's not looking good for you, bud.

Edited by olofscience

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For crying out loud. Isn't there a rule against starting and participating in a thread solely based around discussing a decision from the mods? Why do we even have mods if threads like this go on? It's getting to be like a freaking grade school in here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, gowlerk said:

For crying out loud. Isn't there a rule against starting and participating in a thread solely based around discussing a decision from the mods? Why do we even have mods if threads like this go on? It's getting to be like a freaking grade school in here.

Well, more like a preschool.


There's only a couple toddlers. 

The rest feed and enable them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There will always be those who disbelieve science. Those who see a financial and political advantage in labeling government dysfunctional. People who choose, who falsely use facts and lies intermingled to distract. To paint a narrative coherent only in their minds.

When they get called out on all of it. They waive the flag, bring up the constitution and free speech. Or vainly label it all as a liberal "cancel culture". Because traction is only obtained on the remotest sites on the internet and FOX news. Or within their right wing world on Facebook.

In fact climate science is now a part of the culture war. A tool to be used to attack liberals as business haters.

"the 1997 Kyoto Treaty that threatened the material interests of powerful economic and political interests, particularly members of the fossil fuel industry." So it became useful to throw that into a overall conservative-liberal culture war. Instead of one that uses science.

People who can't or won't bother to study the science instead see it as a culture war with anyone on the left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
14 hours ago, brenthutch said:

It’s noteworthy, how two threads with nearly a hundred thousand views covering a collective span of nearly two decades, has been canceled, just as it became apparent the left side of the political spectrum was on the loosing side of the argument.  The only reason to lock the thread is because the debate is settled, the lefties have conceded and any further discussion would just amount to punching down.  Concession accepted.

Brent, I'm about as right-wing as one can get and I'm probably the one most responsible for suggesting that thread be shut down. In 2007, I was not unlike you. I believed that AGW was bullshit and was deeply resolute in our party's platform. But, when people started using scientific data to erode my political beliefs; it began a period of exploration. 

One of the things that I reflected on was - we were the party of conservationism, environmentalism . . . From Ulysses S. Grant to the late 70's/early 80's; it was our party that vested the most in the environment. I can point to the time of change - 1973-1974. The first US oil crisis. Lack of oil/fuel, long lines at the gas stations, people fighting with each other at gas stations as to who was in line first. Price of gas for those who could get it was ridiculously high. And, the fight for cheap energy began.  

Then, in the early years of Reagan, there was this sudden stratospheric ozone hole which had been attributed to CFCs and HCFCs and the world shit its pants. It was the Reagan administration that pushed for an international agreement based on the work of atmospheric scientists and then began substantive regulations to address the world's greatest environmental issue of the time. 

But, the problem is/was you cannot fight for clean air, conservationism, environmentalism and cheap energy at the same time. So, the Republicans sided with the purses that were getting them re-elected and shifted from the party of conservationism to the party of Oil & Gas and abandoned what was for me - one our biggest core values - conservationism. 

So, with the help of several one here. some still here, some not; I asked for and received a path to understanding their side and to be honest; it wasn't with the intentions of learning their position as much as poking holes in it. Debate 101 shit. Learn what they know, so you can be prepared to defend against it. (this is where you're stuck). What happened was the opposite. I found out they were right and it unnerved me. So, I set out to learn more. Same result. The more learned the more I realized the "right" became so dug into being vested in cheap energy; we'd lost our way. 

But, there is an entire new faction of young republicans and it may interest you to know that young republicans between 18 and 38 actually score two percentage points higher than democrats in the same age range regarding their concern for the environment. For the first time in almost fifty years, both republicans and democrats are looking to discuss AGW and have real conversations about it.   

But, you are not. Your don't want to have an open dialogue. You want to dig your heels in deeper and go from stubborn to obstinate to defiance. And, it was a really bad game of cat and mouse. Populist BS versus scientists. Mercy rule? yeah, it was me calling for mercy on you.  

      

Edited by BIGUN
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so, the natural response to having both of these bullshit threads closed would be to hop on another thread and continue the debate, no?  wtaf is going on here?  or am i missing something?  i do that sometimes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
1 1