Satirical logic for the atheistic mind

[Drich]

Or wink wink I went to a place that needed help on that scale and worked there for a few years...

Sure you did, I bet you went and "engineered" some solutions to their semolina based problems.  

kinda why I want to do the skype.. I want to do a walk though of my factory and other faclities, maybe show some of the patents and other stuff I have been talking about.. never really considered any of this till the big christian debate thread where I was told to open up and share some of these things..

When I do people like you just poo poo on them because iguess you need to see... we are moving into a much bigger location/doubble our current size that will allow me to operate my truck dealership and my refrigeration company out of the same building. maybe then I can share what God has built with a guy most of you think can't tie his own shoes and is not worthy enough to be granted the courtesy to be taken at his own word.

maybe I can share some pics of my mission work and all the other stuff I honestly have done/has happened to me

[The Grand Nudger]

You;re the one that murdered your own credibility.  No sense in bitching about it now.  Maybe you shouldn;t have done that? Isn;t there a commandment prohibiting that sort of thing?

[I_am_not_mafia]

The reason why your so-called 'satire' never works Drich is because you're just not funny in the slightest. Or interesting. I suspect you don't even know what humour is.

I mean, you changed one word? Wow. How boring.

read page 4 forward. none of you caught it including yourself you moron. You could not even recognise the 'hot topic' before I started this thread, because it required an ounce of introspection, which none of you seem to have. just always projecting, never checking one's self for hypocrisy or counterintuitive thinking. Nuuup just bull dozed the frame work you all just used to belittle people whom I proved think just like you do, making you the same people you make fun of..

I must admit that I didn't know who you were trying to spoof. But that suggests the fault lays with your inability to write decent satire. It's like coming out with a joke, and when no one gets it you blame them when you have to explain it to them. The fault's not with them, the fault's with your inability to be funny. Same goes for satire.

Of course you won't understand this because you're the Dunning Kruger poster boy who considers himself the intellectual superior in any situation so therefore everyone else is at fault instead.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2...ger_effect

The cognitive bias of illusory superiority derives from the metacognitive inability of low-ability persons to recognize their own ineptitude; without the self-awareness of metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their actual competence or incompetence

Again I was diagnosed as "retarded" (which was a clinical defination up until maybe 4 years ago) it simply means a child's learning curve is behind other children the same age. it is the opposite of the term they used for 'advanced learning.'

[Anomalocaris]

I'm late coming to this thread. Did I miss a memo or something? Did our theists (Drich, GC, Lil Rik, MK, etc.) decide to have a contest to see who could most completely misrepresent science? Jesus!

I get paid to deal with idiots in the morning. It's too early in the day to volunteer my time.

it's a play on valkyrie's thread pop corn God.. I made this 'pop corn science' but dropped the pop corn god and added the word science.. To show the same people who used the pop corn god frame work to satirically tear apart religion could not introspective look at their own beliefs and see the error, rather they took offense and tore apart the satirical frame work of pop corn science.

Oh, right. Your genius for humor is now clear for all to see now that you’ve kindly explained it.

You should quit all your jobs and do stand up routines full time. Let that be your subsistence.

[Angrboda]

It take the same if not more faith to follow popcorn science, especially after all the failure popcorn science has predicted/warned us about, in our own world n our own life time, (Mini-Ice age by 2000 due to pollution, deforestation by acid rain in the arctic tundra, hole in the Ozone caused by cfc's global warming, global cooling, global climate change due to carbon surplus,(that can some how be fixed by carbon credits/tax, melting Ice caps (nasa says antarctic Ice growing at crazy rate)  let alone what what pop corn science says about planets and galaxies or even the beginning of time.

I'm not going to go through each claim here, but examining the very first one, that science in the 1970s predicted a mini-ice age is patently false. This is just another case of you being a liar for Jesus. And for what it's worth, I didn't find the popcorn thread particularly clever or funny either.

Mainstream Media

What was the scientific consensus in the 1970s regarding future climate? The most cited example of 1970s cooling predictions is a 1975 Newsweek article "The Cooling World" that suggested cooling "may portend a drastic decline for food production."

"Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend… But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century."

A 1974 Time magazine article Another Ice Age? painted a similarly bleak picture:

"When meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

Peer-Reviewed Literature

However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

---

Drich, even for you that last post was incoherent.  You and Huggy should duke it out to see who can misunderstand and misrepresent science more.

glob...

It was a mirror post that Valkyrie made but substituted God with science.

Which only goes to show that words, meaning, and context matter. If you had a good parallel between the two, your satire might be effective. But since your satire is based on lies and distortions, and bullshit arguments, it just ends up being a big WTF?

[Shell B]

Just because it was an attempt at humor doesn't mean it still didn't apply.

[Anomalocaris]

Good heavens. You tell me parodying someone else’s parody isn’t funny?

[Crossless2.0]

I'm late coming to this thread. Did I miss a memo or something? Did our theists (Drich, GC, Lil Rik, MK, etc.) decide to have a contest to see who could most completely misrepresent science? Jesus!

I get paid to deal with idiots in the morning. It's too early in the day to volunteer my time.

it's a play on valkyrie's thread pop corn God.. I made this 'pop corn science' but dropped the pop corn god and added the word science.. To show the same people who used the pop corn god frame work to satirically tear apart religion could not introspective look at their own beliefs and see the error, rather they took offense and tore apart the satirical frame work of pop corn science.

Then I spend a great deal of time point out the hyprocrisy of it all and then use the topic to show greater faith in pop corn science than in pop corn God.

---

Yes, we all know the great efforts  you expend pointing out hypocrisy. *shrug* I haven't read 'popcorn god' thread and don't much care. Have fun with your "satire".

If you want to read really good satire, I have some suggestions. Otherwise, carry on.

[Drich]

It take the same if not more faith to follow popcorn science, especially after all the failure popcorn science has predicted/warned us about, in our own world n our own life time, (Mini-Ice age by 2000 due to pollution, deforestation by acid rain in the arctic tundra, hole in the Ozone caused by cfc's global warming, global cooling, global climate change due to carbon surplus,(that can some how be fixed by carbon credits/tax, melting Ice caps (nasa says antarctic Ice growing at crazy rate)  let alone what what pop corn science says about planets and galaxies or even the beginning of time.

I'm not going to go through each claim here, but examining the very first one, that science in the 1970s predicted a mini-ice age is patently false.  This is just another case of you being a liar for Jesus.  And for what it's worth, I didn't find the popcorn thread particularly clever or funny either.

Mainstream Media

What was the scientific consensus in the 1970s regarding future climate? The most cited example of 1970s cooling predictions is a 1975 Newsweek article "The Cooling World" that suggested cooling "may portend a drastic decline for food production."

   "Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend… But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century."

A 1974 Time magazine article Another Ice Age? painted a similarly bleak picture:

   "When meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

Peer-Reviewed Literature

However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

---

glob...

It was a mirror post that Valkyrie made but substituted God with science.

Which only goes to show that words, meaning, and context matter.  If you had a good parallel between the two, your satire might be effective.  But since your satire is based on lies and distortions, and bullshit arguments, it just ends up being a big WTF?

I guess you are not familiar with the term "patently false" or maybe it's lost in translation or maybe you don't have google where ever you are... because when I google "mini ice age" 1/2 a dozen old articles come up from reputible sources...

oh, look here's one that is recent-ish:
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news...e_age.html Meaning this one is still to come

commentary asside here is a wiki page dedicated to what they did know in the 1970 and literally hundreds of different papers all giving a different theory (which now is being lable conjecture because the theory and time line were wrong but back then that conjecture was scientific fact just like GCC is now!)
But again Dozens of PEERED REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC papers and references/evidences to the comming ice age.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

here is a nasa dude warning of a still comming ice age
https://www.disclose.tv/nasa-scientist-w...015-318625

and here's a link to what help kick off the whole comming ice age BS:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-coming-ice-age/ which you mentioned, but makes my point about how there is a measure of faith required in believeing in 'pop corn science' as there is in beieveing in popcorn God.

I guess the only liar here is the one spreading fake news about the history of the patently false claim to the mini ice age. Did pin you as a person who ignores facts for her 'feelings' on a subject.

[Angrboda]

commentary asside here is a wiki page dedicated to what they did know in the 1970 and literally hundreds of different papers all giving a different theory (which now is being lable conjecture because the theory and time line were wrong but back then that conjecture was scientific fact just like GCC is now!)
But again Dozens of PEERED REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC papers and references/evidences to the comming ice age.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

You even misrepresent your own sources. How are you NOT a liar for Jesus.

The global cooling hypothesis nonetheless gained temporary popularity due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the debate in the scientific literature...Academic analysis of the peer-reviewed studies published at that time shows that most papers examining aspects of climate during the 1970s were either neutral or showed a warming trend.

Wikipedia || Global cooling

From the same Wikipedia article: