Mark calls his particular commenters (ir)Rational Responders, or RRS groupies. If I’m not mistaken, there are some individuals who call themselves “Rational Responders”, who are atheists or something. He seems to have a neverending battle going on, referring to previous posts, and they just keep going back in time. Mark’s eloquence is beyond compare; his civility and manners to be admired. I always enter these with a lot of pleasure; even though oft times they’re simply too shallow and daft to understand the responses given. I always come away learning something.

This will be lost on the likes of Kathryn Cramer who can’t seem to think very deeply about anything. That’s why I’m going to apply Mark’s term to my own personal RRS groupies, as I seem to have collected a few. RRS groupies are so successful at what they do; they don’t have to think. They’re ‘useful idiots’.

Congrats. You can copy and paste.

And once again you conveniently sidestep all the facts. The three basic approaches of rhetorical argument include these three items:

(a) Logos (using logical arguments such as induction and deduction)
(b) Pathos (creating an emotional reaction in the audience)
(c) Ethos (projecting a trustworthy, authoritative, or charismatic image)

Unfortunately, you only have achieved (b) pathos. So you continue to have me completely unconvinced. You should work on your ability to enter into a logical argument; it will get you much further here, and elsewhere. Without citing statistics or facts, you’re really not in a position to say much else other than you disagree with me, which is fine, but then stop leaving comments repeating the same thing over and over again, expecting me to say ‘uncle’. I’m not going to conceded your points, because you don’t have any.

Source

The illustration above and the message it conveys is what is at issue here. A commenter dropped by and validated it:

One of the reasons I quit academia was because the “science” I was meant to be working on fitted to the “Actual Method” shown rather than any ideas I had about “Scientific Method” - silly me!*snip*

…I later concluded that many of the research labs that were as “sucessful” (i.e. big grants, famous professors) were using the same techniques - and that the “junk science” I was practising wasn’t worth the candle …

Not that it needs any validation, it was created by a phd cartoonist who’s pointing out the fallacies of where ’science is going.

My question is, why would you conveniently sidestep all the evidence in the following from The Case Against Darwin, Why the Evidence Should be Examined by James Perloff?

Evidence From Genetics

Evidence from Origins Science

Evidence in Biochemistry

Evidence from Taxonomy

The Microevolution argument

Evidence from Molecular Biology

Why would you assume that it’s a foregone conclusion?

That is pretty conclusive, on the antiquated myth of evolution which should be abolished from text books as a laughable farce.

So give me examples beyond empty rhetoric if you have a problem. If you can’t, then what’s the point of continuing to harrass me?

I’m not sure what that proves, exactly, but you did a good job on it.

It proves the science behind my contention that the theory of evolution has been proven false, and you have given me nothing to contradict what I’ve cited so far, and there is a lot more. Unlike you, I’m actually interested in what the scientific consensus is on both evolution and global warming, and I’m willing to go to scientists and find out. What you’ve done is repeat chapter and verse from the IPCC report as though it’s some kind of holy writ. Maybe it is, to you. But why should it be for everyone else?

Then, when I come up with a conclusion based on the evidence, then I bring it to my readers. That’s pretty simple, isn’t it? According to my research, neither one of those goofy theories is holding up. Isn’t that what they’ve claimed? That there is a consensus? Well, it turns out there’s not.

From your C&P’ed rantings, I see a few main recurring points.

I see a few recurring behaviors in your rants, too, the most important of which is - you are not backing up your sweeping generalizations with any science, and what we’re arguing here is science. At least, that’s what I THOUGHT. Since I’m not a scientist, I am quoting people that are scientists. Since you seem to be completely lost with that approach, I’m sorry for you, but that’s where I’m at with this. You aren’t quoting anyone except the IPCC report, instead, you are- not very cleverly- sidestepping the issue of science when I thought that was what we were discussing.

You seem to me to be ignoring some historical facts.

This is the most amusing peace poster of all time. Note the date. It was issued in the very year the war began. It promoted the 1939 Nuremberg Rally and the slogan translates as the “National Party Rally of Peace”. But the rally (or “assembly”) was cancelled when World War II began. The message of the imagery seems to be: “Peace — or else!”. We all know how vicious and aggressive peaceniks can be, but this image expresses that with unusual clarity.

Anyway, a picture is worth a thousand words look at one of Mosley’s posters from the 1930s. Note the familiar “peace” motif that Leftists always use. This is a Fascist “peace” poster from the 1930’s. Britain also had a vigorous Fascist movement during the Hitler era. And the leader of the British Union of Fascists was Sir Oswald Mosley, who was anything but a nonentity. The King even came to his wedding! And Mosley originally left the British Labour party (in 1930) because it was not socialist enough! As Mosley himself said in 1968: “I am not, and never have been, a man of the right. My position was on the Left and is now in the centre of politics”

Thanks to John Ray, once again.

A friend of mine lived in Germany for several years, and he kept referring to the Greens and the Baader Meinhof gang, afraid that it is happening here. And what do you know, it is! The Baader Meinhoff gang recently hit the news when one of their ilk was ordered released from prison in Germany for her part in the kidnapping and murders of several people.

Baader’s end was anything but glorious. This vile terrorist committed suicide in Stammheim Prison with a shot to the head from a smuggled pistol right after the passengers of a German airliner, hijacked in 1977 by Palestinian terrorists to force German authorities to free him, were rescued in Mogadishu. At the time, this movie ‘hero’ was serving a life sentence for murder, attempted murder, and for forming a terrorist organization. During his trial in 1976, his Baader-Meinhof comrades executed the trial’s prosecutor and his driver in their car at a red light.

The Baader Meinhoff gang was fueled by student anxiety that ranged from the war in Vietnam to university policies, and later stepped it up to kidnapping and murder, and then later, were Green Party advocates in the German government. There are environmentalists who today in America are repeating the same scene on our college campuses. Should we wait for what’s to come later?

For that and many other reasons, I have a deep distrust of the environmental movement and the horror which they’ll bring to us if we don’t alert people to the reality of the past and present.

The radical environmentalists are ‘fundies’. And yes, I am concerned about them all; Bin Laden, terrorist suicide bombers, Al Qaeda, and even our very own RAN, Greenpeace, Earth First!, ELF, Ruckus Society and others. A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist, I always say.

And by the way, Ruckus-trained Zach Exley was trained by and has worked as a workshop facilitator for Ruckus, and was the director for online communications for the Kerry/Edwards campaign. You think this stuff isn’t worth worrying about? You should think again. We should ALL be concerned about this.

Environmentalist ‘peace’ activists use the word ‘peace’, but you really have to stop and think about what that means in a greater context. They step into issues that have little to do with the environment, like the war. They talk about the evil corporations and how dare they make profits!!! Well guess what. Last time I checked, we still have a ‘free enterprise system’, and live under capitalism; but they rail against those eeevvvilll corporations! And to top it off, they’re giddy when they realize that global warming might be their ticket to success. They’re looking to restrict all human activity based on junk science, and we can see it with their jackboot approach with this IPCC report; forcing scientists to back the conclusions into the models. I’m not the only one who’s pointing this out, the President of the Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a ‘Myth’, and there are lots more besides him, by the way, but go ahead with your little vague and weak diatribes against me if it makes you feel better.

Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?

A: It’s not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it’s a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It’s neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it’s an undignified slapstick that people don’t wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the “but’s” are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses. This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.

Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinions…

A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice.

Q: But you’re not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?

A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite. Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don’t know how to do it and don’t plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don’t have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don’t appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change. Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.

[English translation from Harvard Professor Lubos Motl]

So you’d better contact that guy to correct him since he’s so wrong about it; before he publishes his book. Well would you look at that, another one is coming out that debunks this global warming mumbo jumbo!

There are several green organizations that are identified as domestic terrorist groups here in the US, so Baader Meinhof isn’t an aberration on this theme. We’ve got the Ruckus Society, Greenpeace, and Earth First!, just to name a few of them. They hammer 6-inch nails into trees in order to injure the lumberjacks who try to cut trees down. They do things on the ocean in order to injure fishermen and whalers. The Ruckus Society actually has a terrorist training camp here in the US; they learn the fine art of rappelling off buildings and how to start cars on fire. They don’t believe that destruction of property is violence, you see. The belief system is rather twisted, as they believe a dog is a man is a bug, and they can’t distinguish between any of them, which is why in the case of Silent Spring, another green catastrophe, millions of people are dying from malaria. As I recall that fiasco was the result of science that was nonexistent, too.

You claim ‘big republican money’ is behind the resistance to Kyoto and global warming. But ‘big money’ is behind the environmental movement. For example Heinz Ketchup money, not to mention the Turner Foundation, the Tides Foundation and numerous others, but you have little to say on that. It’s those eeevvill corporations and their eeevviill profits that you rail against, which boils down to: capitalism. And what the heck are ‘environmentalists’ doing trying to destroy capitalism? Because they’re more red than green.

First, you think this is some liberal conspriracy to gain power. You don’t think there is any merit to any person that wants a clean environment, and see the whole scientific world as a liberal plot to liberalize the liberal liberal liberal.

I wasn’t kidding about the big money behind these leftist green causes. The greenies who are so proud of their mission statements should read this report by Ben Johnson’s called Heinz 57 Varieties of Charitable giving, with a forward by David Horowitz. It is also available at Frontpage Magazine. Order yourself a hard copy and get some extras. This stuff is important for us frogs in the frying pan.

Heinz 57 I
Heinz 57 II
Heinz 57 III
Heinz 57 IV
Heinz 57 V

If you don’t get the frogs in the frying pan picture from that, then you’re just choosing not to learn about it. But that’s not my problem.

If you take a look at the relationships between the groups and the funders, it would appear that way, yes. If you have a different theory, I’d like to hear it and test it. You can see that over at Discover the Networks. Quite a bit of the scientific world that is putting their hand out for government grants, but unfortunately, when they do that, they’re expected to come out with a predetermined result out of their ‘research’. This was pointed out by one of my commenters; he quit school because of it. My dad said the same thing about MIT, but he left in 1956 or 1957, before the environmentalists started their work on campus there.

I’m just looking at historical evidence, and making an attempt at learning from history. For example, going back again to the Baader Meinhof Gang. One of their members was recently parolled.

The Baader-Meinhof gang was an ultra-left terrorist group named after its founders Andreas Baader and Ulrike Meinhof. The group, which became active in 1970, carried out kidnappings, bank robberies and armed attacks on people who were prominent in the worlds of government and business. Its aim was to fight against what the group considered the capitalist oppression of workers and U.S. imperialism.

Huh. Just like the leftists of today.

Why the Germans would ever do that is beyond me, when this gal was convicted of her role in somewhere around 9 murders, including those of West German chief federal prosecutor Siegfried Buback and Hanns-Martin Schleyer, the head of Germany’s industrial federation. Perhaps it’s because the Green movement is becoming acceptable again; I’m not sure. Perhaps it’s because things have marched so far to the left that it’s now widely accepted in Germany that victims aren’t worth saving, or grieving over, and murderers aren’t worth punishing; we’re all the same. It’s a moral relativist’s dream!

Many of the leftist students would follow Rudi Dutschke’s call to “march through the institutions” and would end up major players in the Green Party years later. The more radically minded ones who didn’t have the patience for the “long march” justified terrorist actions as a way to kick-start a revolution. (Rudi Dutschke: most prominent spokesperson of the student protests of the 1960s, helped the Green Party reach the 5% minimum to enter parliament.)

Not unlike the ‘peace activists’ who are marching against the war on our campuses today, heh? What does the war in Iraq have to do with cleaning the environment? It would seem they weren’t very worried about it when Saddam was gassing the kurds, flying over helpless people with airplanes dispersing the stuff as though he was just dusting crops. But then Saddam carried a copy of Mein Kempf in his back pocket, and was raised by his uncle, who was a nazi. This all goes back to the arab’s connection in the 30’s with the nazi ideology; the Mufti of Jeruselum met often with Hitler, and there was, in fact, an Islamic branch in the SS. Hitler, in fact, admired Islam because of its bloodlust.

To assume that the green movement is a ‘peaceful’ movement is also denying the historical evidence of Hitler having been a greenie himself. You really should look back at history for a lot of this, because if we don’t, we’re bound to repeat it. Personally, I’d rather not have that unfortunate experience.

Reference: Fascist Ecology: The “Green Wing” of the Nazi Party and its Historical Antecedents by Peter Staudenmaier

One of the least recognized or understood of these strains is the phenomenon one might call “actually existing ecofascism,” that is, the preoccupation of authentically fascist movements with environmentalist concerns. In order to grasp the peculiar intensity and endurance of this affiliation, we would do well to examine more closely its most notorious historical incarnation, the so-called “green wing” of German National Socialism.

Despite an extensive documentary record, the subject remains an elusive one, underappreciated by professional historians and environmental activists alike. In English-speaking countries as well as in Germany itself, the very existence of a “green wing” in the Nazi movement, much less its inspiration, goals, and consequences, has yet to be adequately researched and analyzed. Most of the handful of available interpretations succumb to either an alarming intellectual affinity with their subject.” 2 or a naive refusal to examine the full extent of the “ideological overlap between nature conservation and National Socialism.” 3

1. Ernst Lehmann, Biologischer Wille. Wege und Ziele biologischer Arbeit im neuen Reich, München, 1934, pp. 10-11. Lehmann was a professor of botany who characterized National Socialism as “politically applied biology.”
2. Anna Bramwell, author of the only book-length study on the subject, is exemplary in this respect. See her Blood and Soil: Walther Darré and Hitler’s ‘Green Party’, Bourne End, 1985, and Ecology in the 20th Century: A History, New Haven, 1989.
3. See Raymond H. Dominick, The Environmental Movement in Germany: Prophets and Pioneers, 1871-1971, Bloomington, 1992, especially part three, “The Völkisch Temptation.”

This is also conveniently sidestepping and denying Hitler’s connection with the present day Islamofascists, and the fact that Mein Kempf is selling like hot cakes in the Arab world.

First, you deny that anything I’m saying is true. You mystically allege while providing no evidence there’s no merit to what I have to say, but can’t seem to back yourself up. Somehow in your strange little world, I’m the only one who’s saying it. Yet, I am one of the few people who you will find that oftentimes has footnotes in my comments! You ignore my references and/or discredit them in order to wage your little crusade, based upon your humanist religion. You also use you humanist religion to try and discredit the validity or veracity of my points. But since you don’t directly address my points, where are we left? Case in point; your avoiding or sidestep the cited scientific evidence that discounts your little antiquated theory of evolution. I would have to wonder why it is that you are that hard headed to not even admit that I’ve achieved that. Instead, you turn it around, and say that I don’t want a ‘clean environment’. How interesting.

Sure I want a ‘clean environment’, but what does that mean? I don’t especially like to do it, but I clean my toilets once in a while, so what are you talking about specifically? I don’t believe we shouldn’t burn leaves, and I think that much of this is a bunch of hogwash, particularly when you have vague rhetorical arguments based on no data or factual evidence. For example, what is it that the environmentalists are asking us to give up in exchange for this ‘clean environment’? And what exactly is meant by ‘clean environment’? Does it mean destroying capitalism in favor of a socialist utopia or worse? Is it to do what Hillary said not long ago, when she said she wants to use the nasty profits from the oil companies to sink into the environment? And what wouuld THAT accomplish? Are we trying busily to redistribute the wealth here? And why would we want to do that? And how well has that worked int he past? And what precisely are they trying to have us ‘clean’ up? What factual evidence are they presenting for their case? Why is it that you object to our pointing out that problems in the science they use to get us there?

There is no clear discernible effect of human activities on global temperatures. Chart from Geologic Constraints on Global Climate Variability (a powerpoint presentation), produced by Dr. Lee Gerhard of the Kansas Geological Society.

Is it this little man-made sliver of an enormous pie of CO2 emissions?

I got it, you think everything is a political game. I understand that. I think it’s a bit simplistic, and think that it also tends to hamper rational thought, as you no

No, I would call it a WAR. And I view it as a struggle for our very survival; it’s not only a war against islamofascism, it’s a war against clueless leftists and people within our borders who think they’re singing kumbaya when they’re really pulling for and supporting something that’s dangerous, and will destroy our way of life as we know it. This is not a game at all. Environmentalists want to change our capitalist form of government into a socialist one. And we all know how successful redistribution of the wealth is. There should be no reason why we should assume it’ll be any different this time.

And because there are so many of them working on so many causes on so many sides, in so many ways, it’s difficult to combat it. It’s kind of like Al Qaeda coming out with new and different names of little factions all the time. But it’s important for people to be aware of it.

Hell, even bin Laden said that because we didn’t sign onto Kyoto that in itself was reason enough to go to war with us. Now that should tie it all together for you.

“You have destroyed nature with your industrial waste and gases more than any other nation in history. Despite this, you refuse to sign the Kyoto agreement so that you can secure the profit of your greedy companies and industries,” al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden wrote in a 2002 “letter to the American people.”

Sounds just like Hillary and a lot of the people on the campuses of our colleges today, doesn’t it? And it also sounds like YOU.

thanks to Mark My Words, Random Dreamer, Blue Star Chronicles, Perri Nelson’s Website, Dragon Lady’s World, Faultline USA, The Bullwinkle Blog, Pirate’s Cove, Basil,Right Voices, Ferdy, Third World County, stikNstein…has no mercy, Conservative Thoughts, High Desert Wanderer, Dumb Ox Daily News, Random Yak, Wake Up America, OTB, The Amboy Times, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Jo’s Cafe and finally, if you have a trackback party, or have great insightful posts and nobody’s coming, go over and hook up with Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

thanks to Rotty Pup, too, go look at his great post on this green global warming garbage.